If the FCC made their "distortion of the truth" policy a regulation, then Fox "News" problem solved

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

This is the court decision that affirmed the right of Fox News (and any other FCC regulated outlet) to lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.<...> Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."<1>

Here is more complete info from Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/#

************************************************************************************************************************************

Is it too much to ask our news outlets to be legally required to not intentionally falsify the news? Since it would cover all networks and outlets across the board, I would have no objection to this. We would finally get some bright lines as to what constitutes "facts" and what constitutes commentary. I realize there would be a great deal of discussion and dissension as to what is "intentional" falsification, but I still see this as an improvement from the reckless disregard of all things factual, re-inforced by multiple sources, etc. that we have going on now. I think that Fox could still operate the way they do now, but with disclosures similar to the following:

* No one else but us is reporting this because they are all too busy vomiting from revulsion at the source who has zilch credibility

* The following information came from a GOP talking points memo

* The following story was made up whole hog from 1 high school thesis from someone named Brock O'Bahma who lived in Hawaii in 1959
but we thought the similarity in names and the Hawaii location plus the title "Why I Hate America" deserved 2 hours of heated
discussion and the opportunity to inflame your displaced anger was too good to pass up.

*************************************************************************************************************************************

I'm sure if the FCC made a regulation against intentional falsification of the truth that there would be strong disagreement from
. . . . those who intentinally falsify the truth. I think there would have to be obvious and verifiable standards to breach such as in the case reported above. There would be lots of discussion about the First Amendment and about Government controlled media.

Is it possible to regulate truth telling?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Then you get into the fun thing about defining "the truth". I suspect most Faux watchers

are convinced that they are getting the truth!

But I do agree with you!

[The River]

2. Free Speech

is what you do with lungs and vocal chords on the court house steps.
When you electronically amplify that "speech" with expensive equipment
using purchased electricity and then broadcast it on public airways,
as part of a for profit business, it is no longer "free" and
should, at a bare minimum, be factual.

[Selatius]

3. The only real way to get your views across is to stack the court with like-minded people.

That, and you control a large number of seats, preferably a majority of them, in Congress. That's basically the only way to make a reform or regulation stick for a long time.

[annabanana]

4. Stopping the "intentional falsification of the news " seems like

such a minimalist need.. such a low bar. How can the American people demand less?

[Better Today]

12. The American people don't count for shit, get real. We set around and type and whine

and then throw money at congresscritters who don't give a shit about us, then we throw money at those that seem to. . . either way we support the idea that money is the cure for all evils. WE are indoctrinated.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Faux Operates FCC Free

FCC rules do not apply to the cables...thus how faux noise can and do operate outside of any regulation. This is different than the faux TV stations...the ones that show the NFL and the Simpsons that avoid putting their biases out over the air.

For the most part, the FCC is a paper tiger. For the better part of the past 30 years, it's been a wholely-owned subsidiary of the National Association of Broadcasters...passing "deregulation" that turned radio into a bankrupt cesspool of cookie cutter formats and hate radio. It allowed the large corporates to drive out competition and make it all but impossible to challenge a station's license.

To answer your question...no you can't regulate truth telling...that isn't the media's job. It's to report and investigate...and allow the consumer to determine the validity, presenting facts is how this was done. Now it's mostly spin and talking points.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. That's not mentioned as even being a factor in the court case.

If the FCC did not have any jursidiction in the first place, don't you think it would have been thrown out summarily instead of proceding to trial?

[KharmaTrain]

7. That Case Didn't Involve Faux

It involved an over-the-air station which the FCC does have jurisdiction. As we aren't privvy to the briefings and filings made in the case, I can't comment on why a case who move on rather than be thrown out. I'd like more details than just a few snippets cherry picked from a couple articles.

As one whose studied the FCC and its predecessor the FRC, the agency has never had much control over content or "truth"...it's always ended up in a federal court. It's prime function has been as "traffic cop" over interference between stations. Whenever they've attempted to step in to regulate content, they've lost in court.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. I think you are correct that it involved a local over the air station owned by Fox

and not Fox Network per se. (Or at least that what it appears since the 2 articles use the call letters of the station and "FOX" interchangeably)

It still codified the right to lie, which is shamful.

Now that all broadcasting is digital, does that have any bearing on future FCC regulation?

[KharmaTrain]

9. You Are Right About The "Right To Lie"

This is especially the case with a public figure or organization. Libel laws make it all but impossible to hold any media outlet accountable for lies that they can easily palm off as "analysis" and the burden of proof almost always falls on the defendant to prove any real damage. With a cadre of high-priced lawyers a little guy barely stands a chance.

No changes regarding digital...as long as you don't show Janet Jackson's boobies.

What's really shamefull is how the large corporations have co-opted not just the airwaves but the "regulators" (not unlike the banks) and have been allowed to monopolize the airwaves as their private plantation. Last week FCC Chairman Genachowski looks like he's finally ready to tackle reregulating the public airwaves (long overdue):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/10/fcc-may-look-to-redefine-how-it-measures-media-concentration.html

Cheers...

[AndyA]

10. Fuax News should be required to label its programming COMMENTARY at the bottom of the screen.

If they are reporting news, with no attitudes, comments, spin, or anything else--just the facts--the COMMENTARY disclaimer wouldn't be necessary. But when they present something as news, it must be just the facts, and the whole story, no leaving out things that would embarrass the GOP.

I do agree, the FCC needs to update its rules and regulations. There's no need to trample on free speech, they shouldn't try to censor it, but it must be labeled for what it is so people know the difference.

[azul]

13. "should be required" is what this lawsuit demands from congress.

It is difficult to legislate, especially given the intelligence and integrity level of this congress, but it should be rather straight-forward to give the FCC some help by regulations that "news" reporting to be the reporting of facts with no opinions inserted in the story. And make some clear separation of "opinion" stories so that they do not get mixed-up in the news reporting or presented as "news".

If congress can legislate that the government itself cannot use psy-ops propaganda on the public, it can do the same to protect the susceptible from news corporation propaganda.

[ThomWV]

11. You can't regulate speech, but you can regulate telephone poles and wires

If FOX broadcast over the public airways (RF transmission) then they could be regulated because they are indeed using a public resource (one that is also well regulated by international agreement). The telephone poles in front of your house are not much different. They are a public resource delivering electricity, telephone, and now television and internet service to your home. It is time that cable television come under the same regulations that govern broadcast television and its also time to re-institute the fairness doctrine, even though at the moment that would give advantage to the underdog Republicans, but it is still necessary.