Re: Freedom of speech and how to dismantle Faux News

[Turborama]

This was in answer to cal04's thread about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6479450">Freedom of Speech but I made a mistake and posted it as a thread instead of a reply when the cookies screwed it up.

Should we find a way to shut them up?

Yes, absolutely!

If they should be silenced how should it be done?

1st of all they should be forced to stop using their "Fair & Balanced" bullshit slogan. It's about time Faux were taken to court for http://www.answers.com/topic/false-advertising">false advertising regarding their repeated use of this bullshit mantra. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of clips on YouTube now proving how unfair and unbalanced Faux is. I know that MoveOn filed a http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/ftc_filing.pdf">complaint with the FTC several years ago but it obviously went unheard. http://civic.moveon.org/fox/">MoveOn's complaint form is still live, though, and there's more evidence than ever (O'Lielly, Hannity, Huckabee & Glenn BecKKK's hate/fearmongering seditious behaviour for example) that this far right propaganda channel is overstepping the boundaries it has set itself.

Faux's BULLSHIT "Fair and Balanced" slogan fits well within http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm">FTC's Guides Against Bait Advertising, too.

When that happens it'll create such a shitstorm against Faux that people might finally wake up to how much of a brainwashing Goebbels-esque propaganda machine it really is.

BTW I just found a very interesting post in Demopedia dating back to 2003 that has evidence proving that they have been doing this for years: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x844844

Another thing. If it's been amended in the past, why can't it be amended again? Adding that seditious propaganda and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation">disinformation should not be allowed, for example?

I have been having exactly the same thoughts recently, as I posted in the Jon Voight thread last week: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x362209#362449

[liberal N proud]

1. I must agree, FAUX needs to be challenged for false advertising.

[BanzaiBonnie]

2. There have been several posts on this very subject this morning

This is what I had to say and the questions I asked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6478655&mesg_id=6478655


I don't know the legal angle and was asking for input from anyone who might know something about truth in advertising. Is FOX News a business?

It seems this subject should be of utmost importance.

[liberaltrucker]

3. Hate to burst your bubble, but...

Faux is a cable channel, not over-the-air.
Not subject to FCC regs, unfortunately.

:banghead:

[Turborama]

4. What abot the FTC? n/t

[sharesunited]

5. Not entirely true. If they broadcast obcenity or tobacco advertising you would see enforcement.

[Garbo 2004]

10. FCC does not apply broadcast stds to pay tv/radio (cable/sat). Hence

swearing, nudity, etc is allowed on pay tv/radio whereas FCC broadcast license holders (TV/radio) operating on what are considered public airwaves would be subject to fines for such content.

[Turborama]

7. They broadcast to about 60 countries around the world, including Pakistan

In fact, they are so heavily involved in Pakistan that they are linked to roughly 100 providers there. No wonder we're having so much difficulty winning hearts and minds: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html

If they are broadcasting 'over the air' from America to the rest of the world, does that count?

[Garbo 2004]

11. Satellite TV (pay tv) is not "broadcasting" under FCC & FCC's jurisdiction is limited to US. nt

[sharesunited]

6. All The News That's Fit To Print. NYT masthead logo.

ALL the news? FIT to print? Says who?

If you want to confront Fair And Balanced head on, you need to holler loudly for the Fairness Doctrine.

It does mean responsible opposing points of view will gain admittance to Air America and MSNBC however.

[Turborama]

8. Ok, I think losing the NYT logo is a fair price to pay for Faux's bullshit meme

This is a false advertising thing and if someone takes NYT's logo to court, so be it.

I'm also into "responsible opposing points of view", that's how healthy debates emerge, as opposed to the one sided disinformation being spewed by Faux.

[ihavenobias]

9. Maybe they can't be legally forced to change their fair and balanced slogan but...

it reminds me of something that *can* be done legally. Check this out:

"...So enough is enough. If Fox won’t label themselves honestly, it’s time for progressives to start doing it for them. Below is a poll asking whether you think institutions like Yearly Kos, the Democratic National Convention, and Democratic presidential campaigns should fire a shot across the bow by making Fox walk around with "opinion media" credentials instead of the standard "media" credentials given to other media outlets..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/24/221124/993

Olbermann loved the idea and he invited Cenk on Countdown to talk about it. It was later tried at the Netroots convention:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/netroots-try-to-label-fox-news-as-opinion/

[Turborama]

12. But what if the statistics were put together to prove how unbalanced they are?

For example, whenever they have a group of pundits, if they have any 'liberals' there at all they are outnumbered 2 to 1 or sometimes 3 to one, like I saw on Cavuto's show earlier. There are other stats that can be brought in. For example, it would only take spending some time compiling how many stories on a randomly picked day were anti-Obama versus anything positive said about him to prove how unbalanced they are. This would then fall into the definition of false advertising. I'm not talking about taking Faux off the air but it would be a serious blow to their reputation as far as the general public are concerned.

I'm putting something together about how dangerous they are to our relationship with the muslim world, too. Seeing that they are using roughly 100 cable providers in Pakistan to pump out Murdoch's anti-Obama agenda & Islamaphobia really shocked me. That's really going to help win hearts and minds over there, isn't it.

[chrisa]

13. Seditious propaganda...

"Another thing. If it's been amended in the past, why can't it be amended again? Adding that seditious propaganda and disinformation should not be allowed, for example?"

No way. If another Bush gets in, for example, they would just use it to shut down any station critical of them.

Fox News can be ignored. The government has no place in taking people's voices away, even if they may be idiots and misinformed.

[niceypoo]

14. The people who watch FOX want to be brainwashed