The screen capture below (scroll down) got me steamed. It also set me to thinking: Even if the Fairness Doctrine were to return, it wouldn't apply to cable outlets like Fox News. The First Amendment allows them to spew as much slanted propaganda as they wish.
Yeah, but: We also have truth-in-labeling laws in this country. The First Amendment does not allow you to slap a label reading "Beef Stew" on a can of dog crap.
So I propose -- and I'm not kidding -- application of the truth-in-labeling concept to Murdoch's enterprise. FoxNews is not News. It is propaganda and should be labeled as such. I submit that our national dialogue would be much improved if this network were forced to rename itself FoxViews, or something similar. The sobriquet "News" would apply only to a network which can prove to the FCC, each and every year, that the vast bulk of its programming was devoted to truly unbiased reportage.
Such a change would satisfy all Constitutional requirements.
6 comments:
In the end, Fox News is the price we pay for not having an independent, publically funded broadcast network in this country which might offset Fox's bile and untruths, with truly unbiased news -- the kind PBS can't deliver, since it's obliged to give Jerry Falwell more time than Charles Darwin, and pretend that "debates" which were settled in the 19th century still represent open questions on which decent people can disagree, or face government and corporate cuts.
As for truth in labeling -- forget it, will never happen.
Murdoch also owns Dish Network, which is currently offering "deals" on satellite and internet packages.
actually, the truth in advertising angle has been used in the past, and there may even be a case in the courts right now to that effect. i'll have to do some investigating, but i do recall something along those lines.
regardless of what may or may not be in action now, however, it might be worth some action from citizens. it would not be hard to find the statute that directs that law, and i'll ask ms. de la vega if she's familiar with it. as for a civil lawsuit case, citizens would need to prove damages of some sort, and unfortunately, there may be none that could not be counterargued as 'you can always change the channel.'
the really good news, though, is that fox's ratings have been steadily dropping over the past year. and my prediction is that, if they keep up with those overtly slanted outbursts of propaganda, they'll keep losing their audience until murdoch is losing his money.
and i can live with that. though some sort of legal action to define the limits would be right nice.
If FOX starts losing their audience they will simply do what they always do, hike up the skirts of their anchors(actors) as well as cover more pagent sexcapades. What is needed here is a law that states that if you use the word news on your show, cable or not, you must live up to the fairness doctrine otherwise your program must not use the term news anywhere in your program.
No, it's DirecTV that Murdoch owns -- not Dish.
unfortunately, the fairness doctrine was dropped by the fcc under reagan/bush in the late 80s.
timing is interesting, isn't it? isn't that when all the rush hate radio talk shows exploded?? of course; they no longer had to account for what they asserted or accused.
Post a Comment