Is it time the FCC started pulling some licenses of "news" organizations?

[southerncrone]

Does anyone have information about what is required of an organization registered as a "news" outlet with the FCC?

Seems Faux Noise, along w/the companies who sponsor Rush the Gush, Belck, & other hate-mongers must have a code of conduct & ethics expected of them if they hold news licenses. The fact that Faux Noise continually reports erroneous information should be reason for their being "jerked off the air"!

What are your thoughts on this? Could we petition the FCC on this?

[Newsjock]

1. FCC has no jurisdiction over cable/satellite

Sadly, them's the laws.

[southerncrone]

2. Thanks for that info, newsjock. Exactly what I wanted to know.

Not happy w/the answer.....but.

Who does have jurisdiction over cable/satellite?
They certainly must be regulated by someone.

[1handclapn]

6. ok.. i'll settle for flushing Faux down the toilet..

[kevinbgoode]

9. however, cable service is supposedly regulated by local

communities. There might be something creative that can be done to question the stations provided by those services. . .particularly if there isn't much balance in the selection.

[sharesunited]

11. That's not entirely true, or John Stewart wouldn't need to get bleeped.

And you'd be seeing ads for Camels and Lucky Strikes.

[depakid]

16. It has jusdiction over Newscorp's broadcast stations and can force then to divest

newspapers too by reinstating cross-ownership rules.

That would be the smart thing to do.

[kirby]

3. Not possible...

Perhaps the licenses of the AM / FM radio stations that carry these hate-speech/riot inciters. But the FCC only covers 'public airwaves'. Private Satellite transmissions does not count.

[tritsofme]

4. Use government agencies to shut down your political opponents?

Sounds like something George Bush or Hugo Chavez might be interested in, not me.

[1handclapn]

5. if they lie distort, incite mayham... shut them down after a warning..maybe after a big fine..

[southerncrone]

7. There is a difference between "political opponents" and flat out liars.

If they were engaging in "honest debate" of the topics & offering differing views & backing them up w/facts & the truth, I have no problem with that.

However, out-and-out lying becomes an ethical problem for us all. Especially the uninformed, who believe these lies because they are representing themselves as "news organizations", instead of what they really are--propoganda machines. THAT sounds like Hitler & the old USSR folks.

[tritsofme]

8. Who gets to decide what is a lie and what is a fact? Alberto Gonzales? John Ashcroft?

We are not always lucky enough to have an Eric Holder.

[Hugabear]

10. A lie is a lie

When the rethugs are claiming that the health care plan will establish "death panels", that is a flat out LIE.

[tritsofme]

13. Of course it is a lie.

But the President is responding in the right way, by calling the liars out publicly.

Not by shutting down opposition media outlets.

[Kurska]

23. Who gets to define what a lie is?

Some government would consider "This government is not representative of god's will" to be a lie.

[KittyWampus]

14. I'm fine with Fox putting on an "information" show. But there should be a defined standard

as to what is and is not "news".

[depakid]

17. We had responsible media regulation for 60 years

that prevented these sorts of abuses.

But of course, you probably prefer being lied to every night- and having so little diversity in communities across the nation that it approaches what you's find totalitarian countries.

These stations broadcast on the public airwaves. When they demonstrably break their licensing agreement to serve the public interest- their licenses ought to be non-renewed. Nothing Chavez-like about that. Quite the opposite.

[nonsequitur]

18. No shit! WTF???? Are we now like Bush and Cheney? No thanks....

that is dangerous territory there. Silence the opposition? Remember that works both ways.

[Peace Patriot]

19. You think RCTV, whose execs actively participated in the violent rightwing military

coup against the elected government in 2002, who hosted meetings and broadcasts of the coupsters at their station, who provided rightwing thugs with lists of public servants in the Chavez government and their home addresses, who then hunted them down and dragged them from their homes and beat them, and who broadcast lies on behalf of the coup--that Chavez had resigned (he had not)--and broadcast doctored video footage that Chavez supporters were shooting coup supporters (they were not), and applauded the suspension of the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, should be given a license renewal to foment treason, violence, chaos and lawlessness on the public airwaves?

And you think that all the public airwaves should be controlled by radical corpo/fascists--as they have been in Venezuela--because...why? Because radical corpo/fascists have the money to accumulate multi-national media conglomerates and buy up all the licenses?

The public airwaves and cable should be subject to rules and regulations aimed at, a) a wide spectrum of political discussion, not just corpo/fascism; b) access by the public to the means of mass communication, and c) busting media monopolies to kingdom come.

That is what the Chavez government is trying to do in Venezuela--to achieve the fairness and the anti-monopoly regulations that we once had here. They are also trying to prevent another media-run coup d'etat--something we were not able to do in 2000, and 2004, guess why? Because all of our public airwaves are dominated by lying, warmongering, propagandistic, corpo/fascist billionaires!

It is in the corpo/fascists' interests to portray Chavez as a "dictator." He is not. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, said of Chavez, "They can invent a lot of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!" Was he lying? But even more important, the people of Venezuela have elected Chavez as president twice (three times, if you count the U.S. taxpayer funded recall election) with increasing margins of the vote, in elections that are far, far more transparent than our own, and they give Chavez and his government consistent approval ratings in the 60% range. Are they all fools? Dupes? Ignorant peasants? What? He is close friends with many of the other democratic leaders of the continent, and is highly respected and allied with them all. When the Bushwhacks sent down their dictate that the leaders of South America must "isolate Chavez," Nestor Kirchner, president of Argentina, replied, "But he's my brother!"

Would all of the democratic leaders of South America--and most in Central America--and 60% of the Venezuelan people--support a "dictator"? Think about it. Think what fact-less, baseless, rightwing propaganda we are constantly subjected to--on every issue, on every TV/radio station and damned near every newspaper--but never more so than on the South American left and this fascist creation--the bogeyman Chavez.

[spanone]

12. no standards for truth

[TexasObserver]

15. The FCC DOES have jurisdiction over cable. Please see here.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html

If you'll see this page from the FCC's website, you'll see they do have jurisdiction over cable, and also have a way for you to complain to them.

They're not likely to get into show content, however, with cable.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Nothing would be more conducive to free speech and true democracy than if we

were to yank every broadcast license in this country, and hand them over to new, independent, small businesses and non-profits. The corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies are killing our democracy. They have turned free speech--our most precious right, the first of the Amendments, the most basic requirement of democracy--into corporate-speak. That is not freedom. That is tyranny!

[backwoodsbob]

21. this sec tion from fcc seems relevent

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html

*snip* As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene. *snip*

[Kurska]

22. Censorship is not progressive.

It is never progressive, people can print any lies they want it isn't my business.

[depakid]

24. Print yes, broadcast no

Licensee's have a duty to serve the public interest- and knowing repetition of false statements of FACT day in and day out fails to serve the public interest. Period.

Thus, the license ought to be non-renewed and granted to someone else who will use it responsibly.

[Kurska]

25. Why is broadcast any diffrent from print?

Again I ask you, should we really be investing in the government the power to determine the "Facts" of modern news? Why do you want to put America in league with countries like Yemen who pull the rights of broadcasters if they don't toe the government line?

[depakid]

27. Tons of reasons

And knock the "government" fear deal off- and the ridiculous comparisons to Yemen.

Since the repeal of responsible regulation what you in America have now IS like Yemen- A level of uniformity (espoecially on the radio) that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.

No, what America needs desperately is a return to accountability and the public interest standard. Willingly spread lies- demonstrably false statements of facts- and you lose your broadcast license.

[rucky]

26. We need labeling laws.

Just like you can't say a food is lowfat, when it has 24 grams of it. You shouldn't be able to say a program is news, when it's distorted facts mixed with paid opinions.