What can be done about the Faux problem?

[_Jumper_]

Is there a way to force them to cease being a RNC mouthpiece?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Well, I suppose we could take up a collection and buy them.

[maggrwaggr]

45. let's take up a collection and compete with them!

what we need is TruthTV, a cable news network that actually tells the truth.

Kinda like DU, only with charming, good-looking people giving the news. :)

I know somebody's working on this, and Viacom's giving them a hard time. We need it NOW, though.

As angry as everybody is in this country, we'd get a hell of a lot of viewers.

[ewagner]

2. Pesky first amendment issue here......n/t

[maggrwaggr]

34. wrong. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater

which is what Fox is doing.

Remember, they hung the Nazi propaganda chief.

Fox, by presenting itself as a news source, has a responsibility, and banging the drums for war, knowing that the reasons for the war are lies, promoting unadulterated hate speech by the likes of Ann Coulter and her ilk ....

Well to me it's exactly the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

First amendment only applies to individuals, not to news organizations with cable TV deals.

[Silverhair]

36. Does the First Amendment apply to newspapers?

Yes, it does apply to organizations too. Their speech is political speech, and therefore is the most protected category of speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT political speech. Your desires would result in tryanny.

[maggrwaggr]

44. Tyranny my ass. The Fairness Doctrine did not result in "tyranny"

Do you support the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine?

If so, why?

[SharonAnn]

49. Most protected category? Like "Free Speech Zones" where

protestors are hidden from * and his cronies?

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Lies are in fact a form of protected speech.

You'd fhave a helluva time making the Holmesian "crowded theater" case.

[SnohoDem]

3. Imagine

the effect on Faux News of re-instating the Fairness Doctrine.

It makes me :).

[_Jumper_]

7. Fairness Doctrine

Can't they skirt around it via token liberals such as Colmes?

[bluestateguy]

4. Yes

When there is a Democratic president he should revoke their White House Press Credentials, and order members of his Administration to shun Fox News.

Fox can broadcast whatever they want, but there is no constitutional right to press access to the White House.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. That would look VERY bad

The whole media would be after the new Dem president. You don't play Washington that way. In the meantime, the media would go after the president the second he did such a stupid bush-league thing.

[jbm]

6. we can outsmart them...

I saw O'Reilly being interviewed on some show the other day and he used an evenly divided online poll from his site(and I'm wondering if we helped to 'freep' it) to prove that his viewing audience is a mix of liberals and conservatives. That was total BS,but I could see the glee in his eyes as he screwed us at our own game.

The right does stuff like this to counter-punch us all the time. Back when Rush was mentioning DU on a regular basis,I made it a point to make a campaign contribution to one of our candidates everytime DU was mentioned in a negative fashion by some RW media source. If we look for the 'third way' reaction to their negatives,we may not be able to stop them,but at least we can counter with a positive.

[liberal72]

12. "Freep"

Sorry if I sound dumb, but what does "freep" stand for?

[jbm]

22. welcome to DU liberal72!

and you don't sound stupid! :) "Freep" is from the nickname 'freepers' given to the people from free republic,an extreme conservative site. They keep an eye out for online polls and then post them at their site so the members can vote on them(sometimes frequently)and slant them in favor of the repub stance. It's kind of hypocritical to criticize them for it,cause we do it too(although I think a good argument could be made that we do it as a defensive measure).

[blurp]

16. I'm guilty -Doh!

I saw O'Reilly being interviewed on some show the other day and he used an evenly divided online poll from his site(and I'm wondering if we helped to 'freep' it) to prove that his viewing audience is a mix of liberals and conservatives. That was total BS,but I could see the glee in his eyes as he screwed us at our own game.

Well, I haven't really seen much of O'Reilly, but to be quite honest, I've seen more Democrats interviewed on that station than on any other station. Seriously. Now, the interviews are tough and the Fox folks can be jerks, but there is action and life. It isn't a good thing to completely surround yourself with people that agree with you.

I suppose my vice goes back to watching Crossfire on CNN. There was something exciting about the back and forth between the different points of view. Maybe that's why I like the Deans and McCains(a pretty liberal Repub, IMHO)of the world. They are free spirits.

[jbm]

26. welcome to you also blurp!

(I'm guessing you're new from your post count..if you're one of the 'read a lot-post a little' members,then I'll just offer a friendly hello):)

I can't stomach much of FOX,but I do agree that there is much to be gained from hearing 'the other side of the issue'. Nine times out of ten I hear the 'other side' and think "WTF"?? Every so often though they surprise me with a sound argument and it's my turn to back up and rethink.

[maggrwaggr]

8. lawsuits

I don't know how this would work, but it seems like somebody, somewhere, would know how to do this.

Are all lawyers evil? Any good ones out there? Hello?

[Lone_Wolf]

10. False Light?

I'm not a lawyer, but False Light seems like it would be easy to prove.

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html

Maybe we can have a class action lawsuit aginst them?

[maggrwaggr]

31. Interesting. Right now it's sorta the opposite of False Light

in that they've been cheerleading and hyping someone else's lies.

[leftofthedial]

9. win the election

seize total power

eliminate private campaign funding

launch an inquisition

eliminate the neocons and corporatists

start fresh

as long as this is a capitalist state, the corporations will infiltrate and control as much of the political system as they need.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. "Eliminate"

Your use of that term is damn scary.

[leftofthedial]

21. good

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. How about scary and irresponsible

and the kind of stuff they love to quote on the radio.

[Cooley Hurd]

41. Thank God you're here, Muddleofheroad!

Thank you for saving us from ourselves - I, for one, wouldn't want to make Hannity or Limbaugh angry at us! Oh, the horror!

</sarcasm>

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. When we talk about "eliminating" people

You make NORNMAL people angry at you. That's because it's irresponsible and irrational.

Those wingnuts only serve to get the word out. But we shouldn't give them unnecessary ammo.

[leftofthedial]

55. I applied "eliminate" to three entities

1. private campaign funding--this is hardly irresponsible.

2. corporations--radical to capitalists, but hardly irresponsible.

3. neocons--I believe they should be tried for treason when (if) the country once again is ruled by law. Calling for the elimination of traitors is also not irresponsible. In fact, it is prudent.

I believe it is against DU rules to call me irrational.

[leftofthedial]

54. so much the better

you think we can fundamentally change what's wrong with this nation without some pain?

Both sides need to know this will be difficult and painful.

Conservatives versus liberals is one thing. It is a natural dichotomy that will always exist.

the neocons are something else entirely. They are criminal parasites and need to be burned out like ticks.

How would you propose to address the "Faux News problem"?

[pfitz59]

11. Strip Murdoch of his (questionable) US citizenship.

Deport him, and auction off his US holdings! In my book he IS a terrorist!

[Djinn]

14. God NO!!!!

he might come back here! although he'd probably go to the UK but as a citizen there as well can I ask that you PLEASE keep him

as to what to do about Faux - if * does loose the next election they will overnight become slightly less offensive - Murdoch isn't a Republican, his only passionate beliefs are making even more money and getting even more power and access to legislators and as such with a democratic administration in power they'd have to back off a bit I think

[Silverhair]

15. I reject the idea of a totatalitarian gov't with YOU being the dictator.

That's what you are advocating. The media must meet your approval or they can't speak. That is censorship, and is wrong. I would take up arms to fight your attempt to trash the first amendement. The ONLY way that we have our freedom to speak, is to also protect FOX's freedom to speak.

[_Jumper_]

18. False, unless you think the Fairness Doctrine was censorship

I'm simply calling for the media to be ojbective, which is what the point of the Fairness Doctrine was.

[Silverhair]

25. That guy is wanting more than the "fairness doctrine".

He is wanting to dictate to them what they can & can't say politically. And yes, I do believe the fairness doctrine was censorship. I am pretty radical when it comes to the First Amendment and I take an extremely broad interpretation of it. In fact I also believe that the recent campaign finance reforms violated the First Amendment too. Since the SCOTUS was split on the decision, then some of them agree with me.

[_Jumper_]

28. You were responding to me

I wasn't calling for censorship or government control of Faux.

Well, at least you are consistent on the First Amendment.

[Fla_Democrat]

17. Radical solution

Stay with me, it's kind of tough to follow.

If you have a problem with Fox....... don't watch it.

"Hey Doc, it hurts when I move my arm like this."
"Then don't move your arm like that."

There are two buttons on your T.V., the on/off and the channel selector, either one will cure your problem with FNC.

[_Jumper_]

19. Nope

It will still influence MILLIONS of people with its propaganda. That is the problem. We start each election behind the 8 ball because of conservative propagandists like Faux News, Rush, Hannity, Savage, et al.

[Fla_Democrat]

27. Oh, you want to protect others

who are, shall we say, too susceptible to their influence? It's not you, or me, or anyone here that is the problem, we are all smart enough to see through it, it's the others, who must be saved?

I haven't seen anyone that interested in protecting the ignorant masses since the last Harry Potter book came out, and people wanted to ban it.

As I sometimes pray, "Lord, save me from people wanting to save me from myself."

[_Jumper_]

29. Do you support regulating alcohol and cigarettes?

:)

[Fla_Democrat]

30. For purity?

For content? or to slap a big ol tax stamp on the bottom to get Uncle Sugar his cut?

Personally, I always regulate my cigarettes and alcohol. I count how many are in the pack, and mark my bottles. :evilgrin:

[_Jumper_]

32. Regulating their sales, advertising and warning people of their dangers

Do you approve of that?

[Fla_Democrat]

35. Sales, yes

I think that society can set an age of consent, and regulate what is permissible for people who have not reached that age to have access to. For adults, no. Do I want some preacher, of a religion that I don't practice getting "blue laws" passed in a state to prevent me from buying beer on Sunday? No.

Advertising, no. Am I hurt by billboards for beer, am I somehow harmed by NASCAR having a Copenhagen sponsor on a race car?

Warning people of their dangers, no. Where does it stop? Tobacco, pot, warning people of the dangers of unattended shopping carts? Do you know how many people die each year falling off of ladders?

However, I don't see the connection between beer and Fox. Maybe it's me. :shrug:

[_Jumper_]

37. You're fairly consistent

That was the point of the question.

[Fla_Democrat]

39. Thanks,

most people follow up an opening like that with consistently wrong. :evilgrin: I appreciate the explanation, 'cause I was lost there for a second. :-)



Good Night to you, hate to bail like this, but 5 am is only in another 5 hours. This has been fun, and I'll make a point to check back tomorrow, after work. Who knows, I might read something that changes my mind. :hi:

[_Jumper_]

40. Nite

:hi:

[bpilgrim]

20. Truth in Advertising

:shrug:

peace

[JohnnyCanuck]

23. FAUX must die

I agree that it should not be watched as part of the solution. The other part should be to constantly comment on their bias no matter the forum. In letters to the editors, talking in any conversation, other forums on the internet, always preface your comments with “like they are not biased, slanted, way off kilter, etc”. It will become part of the cultural norm to comment on how incredibly slanted they are. Look at that Simpsons episode where the FOX news guys was interviewing Krusty. The slam they gave to Fox about their bias was brilliant. You know if the Simpsons comments on it, is becoming so well known. We just have to make sure that that message gets put in peoples faces and not with subtle satire.

It is up to us to push out this knowledge to Ma and Pa Kettle who are too dumb to see it. We just have to keep on planting the seed and we can’t let up. Pretty soon EVERYONE will think of FOX and the Weekly World News as one and the same for credibility.

Of course that is just my own opinion ;)

[madrchsod]

24. don`t watch

after awhile their importance fades away. you`ll never get them and the people who watch them to change. the truth is something they do not want to face.

[Skittles]

33. there will always be an audience for mental midgets

who need to be told what to think. Let it go. FOX "news" fools no one and very often makes fools of themselves. Only idiots take them seriously.

[Cleita]

42. Don't watch. Don't buy from their sponsors. Tell others

not to watch and why. Even Rupert Murdoch loves money over Bush and the Republicans. When his sponsors stop buying commercial time because they are being boycotted, then you'll see the demise of Faux as the main White House propaganda news channel.

[Cooley Hurd]

43. The only REAL way we can beat Faux...

...is by:

A) not watching it
B) telling everyone we know that it's the most biased media entity in history and/or
C) boycotting its advertisers.

Anything else would deny them their First Amendment rights...

But, I certainly agree that something akin to a Fairness Doctrine should be enacted (as a voluntary pledge by broadcasters). I would also encourage "media watchers" like MWO by contributing to them.

[ThoughtCriminal]

46. Pravda could not save communism

The bias of FOX News is going to shrink their creadibilty to a niche of lunatics.

Good FAUX jokes will do way more damage than boycotts.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

47. Two words...DON'T WATCH

Couple more words... boycott boycott boycott, products that advertise on the "network".

[veracity]

48. Don't you know a FOXymoron ...

....when you see one????

FOX News Reported; TvNewsLies.org Decided!

http://tvnewslies.org/html/foxymoron.html

[linazelle]

50. I know way to many people who watch Faux "news" and entertainment channels

I don't watch Fox at all. But if you go to an airport or a restaurant, it's the station of choice. I really don't think people understand the connection between * and the media. People need to be educated about what the media has become.

[KharmaTrain]

52. Boycott Sponsors...ALL Faux Sponsors

I know this is tough on some, but the only thing that drives the Faux machine is green. Murdoch is a moronic, right wing goon, but he's a capitalist first. He set up Faux since he smelled the same money Rush and hate radio was starting to generate and offered a TV outlet...and the cash rolled in. Also having his regular Fox Network (Simpson viewers), FX, Fox Sports, DirecTV and dozens of newspapers and cable systems have created a financial media empire that continues to grow.

The good news is Rupert's 70-something and while his sons are assumed to be in line to continue this media juggernaut, history has shown the break-up of other media giants when the spoils of empire are divided in a lawyer's office (or in a court battle).

I keep a little notepad near my tube where I jot down sponsors I see on broadcasts I don't care for. Most are "agency" or large-scale network buys targeting the audience rather than the ideology, and I see these people on CNN and MSNBC as well. But there are others that are strictly Faux...or on some systems there are commercials from local businesses that are inserted into the channel (usually requested by the client)...These people are the ones who I avoid buying from...and when the opportunity arises, I let them know (just as I do with hate radio...which is far more local) that my family refuses to do any business with that company or subsidiary and to spread the word to friends and associates. Some get real testy, but you will get someone who doesn't realize there's a silent majority of us out there that find what he/she's business is supporting to be offensive...controversy isn't always a good thing for a local business.

Lastly, the way to bust up Faux and other media giants is the re-institution of the FCC ownership rules that were swept away in '96 that opened the door to the Clear Channels, Viacoms and Faux's of today. Re-institute rules limiting the number of stations a company can own...and enforce it. Require holders of public broadcast licenses to reside in that community, provide a certain percentage to their airtime to local issues and organizations and allow for the open contesting of license renewals. Next is to look into cable ownership rules as well...give those back to the local municipalities that were supposed to control them. These aren't new rules, just old ones that worked well but were abused, then swept away in the rush for greed and power.

The last thing I support is censorship...in any form. The fairness doctrine for all it's benefits in forcing stations to provide equal time never applied to "Entertainment" (Insanity & Strawman) or "News" (hard news) programs...which Fox can rightfully claim all their programs are. This law only applied to political advertising...forcing broadcasters to take low rates for campaign advertising (the GOOP realized they had more money and lifting these rules priced out the Dems) and never applied to providing equal time in any station produced forum.

[durutti]

56. Even if so, it's not desirable.

IMHO, focusing so much on FOX News distracts people from the fact that the other major media outlets are just as beholden to their corporate masters (even if they're not so blatant).

Besides, I can always tune into FOX when I need a laugh.