"I'll bet you that a good 90% of these people that supposedly voted for him couldn't actually tell you a policy position that they support."

True. It's very much like football teams at this point. Trump is their team or their religion. Tik tok/youtubers interview them.. tell them Obama said "blah bla.." they get angry, then switch it up "Trump said it".. they change on a dime and excuse Trump.

I don't think getting rid of fox matters..they'll go looking for a channel that is rapidly pro Trump.

The Scourge of This Nation!

Most of them probably couldn't pass the citizenship exam (including our "supposedly" leader)

When informed moments later that it was actually Dump who said it Joe says its ok, everyone makes mistakes.

Of the takeover of cognitive dissonance. This is the proof he had entered the cult.

Another way to "keep it fair."

I've never seen DJT able to detail anything about policy, ever. Instead, he typically slimes a difficult detail question into an attack on the questioner, their employer, how they are supposedly "failing", how badly he was treated for being asked such a "rude" question or a condescending deflection of "you'll have to ask so and so".

That is the SOP of the "smartest man in the world". I could be wrong but just cannot recall any substantively detailed response from him on anything dealing with policy. Ever.

he's a bully and a stupid one.

The most insidious, Sinclair Broadcasting Group. All the others are in your face RW. Sinclair has permeated local news, the most trusted source for most people.

I miss you

Murdoch & Co have been allowed to do as they please, with 0 pushback.

The murdochs are somewhat vilified in the UK. In the US, not so much.

I've never thought about it but I've never seen a protest against FoxNews. That needs to be addressed.

protests outside everyone of those over-the edge right-wing media companies. FOX, OAN, hell, anything that Sinclair owns, right, including Sinclair!!! We already boycott them (in that we don't listen to them), but we can boycott the businesses that keep them on the air/ in business. People have the Power (Patti Smith). Power To the People! (John Lennon). Would someone upload those from YouTube for me? I'm an old dog and can't learn new tricks.

How about lawsuits for in-kind campaign contributions for the hours of unbroken trump campaign speeches they broadcast under the "breaking news" banner.
How about the "Montana senate election update" segment which was nothing more than a puff ball interview with the republican candidate. the end. They need real pushback and public shaming.

They don't have the 1st amendment.

Media consolidation is the problem. That suppresses freedom of the press.

It's nonsense of course.

Does he keep admitting it on tv. And he said before the election that he didn’t need the votes, he already had all he needed.

I was amazed at how fast the M$M called every single swing state for TSF on election night. My first thought was, 'WTF is going on.' They tried to swing it in 2020 but, never imagined that over 80M people would risk Covid and get out to vote for Biden. Elon hired the little techie bros to adjust the algorithms for 2024.

How are we to know the truth unless someone investigates? And since everyone with the power to do so always says that the integrity of our voting systems is foolproof and fail safe, 100%, how are we to truly know? They wanted to win that bad to do whatever is possible to achieve that. They are liars and cheats and want all the money they feel is rightly theirs for the taking.

https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/

Only the former is available for Musk/Starlink election CT.

insufficient investigation is done

Sorry, but the RW elected Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan years before Fox News existed. Over 70 million people -- insanely -- voted for Trump twice. That's a shitload more people than watch Fox News.

So, "dismantling" a media outlet isn't going to happen so long as there is a First Amendment and people willing to defend the first amendment.

I can start a boycott movement and if that movement gains traction and say FoxNews loses their broadcasting license then that's the free market at work. Me trying to dismantle a media outlet has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

That certainly sounded like more than a call for a boycott or free market action.

freedom of choice

The political right wing and big money dominate the media. That de facto suppresses all voices.

They shouldn't be allowed. That has nothing to do with the Constitution. Speech that is for sale is not free.

The founding fathers and the preeminent progressive Supreme Court justice in history, William O Douglas would roll over in their graves at such thinking.

Last edited Sat May 17, 2025, 02:10 PM - Edit history (3)

Protected from what? Popular government needs to be protected from the media moguls.

I didn't suggest any remedies. I am merely saying we have a problem.

Here is a really funny thing. Searching for anything related to this topic brings up extreme right wing propaganda almost exclusively.

The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the public. The threat was from the government through the suppression of the press. Today the threat comes from the press. A relative handful of wealthy people use the press to mislead the public and to control the politicians and the government. What is the difference between King George deciding what can and can't be published and Rupert Murdoch et al deciding that, in terms of the suppressive effect on the public;s access to information?

We have a president making public policy based on what he sees on Fox news, and staffing the government with people from Fox News. At the same time he is threatening news organizations and individuals who disagree with him, that is to say, who disagree with Fox News. That is the problem today.

Speaking of Justice William O. Douglas...

And there is no claim that Fox or the other right wing media outlets are behaving in an anti-competitive manner.

As the Court stated, in a 1974 opinion joined by Douglas -- and Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan -- "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated."

And newspapers are "speech that is for sale" -- but you apparently think that disqualifies them from protection.

You didn't address my point.

There is no claim that Fox or the other right wing media outlets are behaving in an anti-competitive manner? Well, I will claim it right here right now. So there is at least one claim.

I am talking politics. The need to fight against the power of the few over every aspect of our lives, the control over the national political discussion by that few, the corruption of our political system by big money - that's my "claim." That is what "dismantling Fox News" is about.

How is anyone being "a long time communications lawyer" relevant?

Particularly since competition in the cable news channel has increased since Fox launched in 1996 and also in the sub market for rightwing cable news.

Really, I am dumbfounded. If you can't see a problem I don't know what to say.

Last edited Sun May 18, 2025, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

That is claiming they are engaged in anticompetitive behavior but can’t give a single example.

And I’m not the one suggesting the first amendment shouldn’t apply to commercial media outlets.

When you come up with a lawful way to dismantle or silence Fox News — and Newsmax and OAN — post it.

Glad to hear that you "don't like" Fox News. I am not really talking about what we "like."

Right wing propaganda is being pumped into the public mind 24/7 from every direction. You say we are powerless to stop that. I say we aren't.

"Legal" = $$$$. "Rights" = $$$$

So long as you ignore that, talk about rights and what is and what isn't legal is academic, that is to say "theoretical, speculative, having no practical or useful significance."
.

You are aware, at least I hope, that Faux is on cable, satellite and internet, where no license is required?

Would we stand for this. Vladimir over here, talking bad constantly about the US government and spreading conspiracy theories, and that would be fully protected by first amendment? That should not be covered and that should not be allowed.

then absolutely he or a proxy could, the FCC has no authority over those venues, so your point of view is nonsense, now if he tried to set up an OTA channel, then he or his proxy would be required to obtain a broadcast license from the FCC, which can be denied.

Of course the people, through their government, have the right to exercise authority over businesses of all kinds.

He couldn't get a broadcast license, because foreign ownership of US broadcast licenses is limited.

But there are foreign owned satellite-delivered channels and if a company like DirecTV or Dish or a cable company like Cox or Comcast or a streaming service like YouTube TV wanted to offer it, they probably could. There also are Canadian and Mexican broadcast stations whose signals are available over-the-air near the border with the US and are carried by some nearby US cable systems

It's very nice to have an experienced communications lawyer on DU.
I've always enjoyed reading your informed posts on the laws governing communication.

Because there was no Fox News all the Republicans were not tainted. And you back then you had Republicans that stepped up and said enough have no decency and they pushed Nixon out. Just for obstruction. Today that won’t happen it never will. They’re all in because of Fox News and the like

you can revoke their broadcast license and the licenses of anyone claiming to "report" the "news/facts" on an entertainment network.

The courts didn't go far enough and neither did the government in its definition of what constitutes "news" versus entertainment. If I were in Congress, I'd simply introduce a bill to clarify the definition of a "news organization/entity" to be one that adheres to accepted journalistic standards (confirmation from three separate independent sources for a story, for example), one that has reporters with actual press credentials issued to them, and one that has maintained its license and credentials in good standing without too many complaints/investigations.

Furthermore, we can ding the monopolies. These mass media companies, like the plague of capitalist parasites they are, could be broken up. No media company needs to dominate above a certain percentage of the airways in a region, or own a massive market share of any genre of media.

If I were King, however, I'd go farther and start levying fines for errors made without retractions. Hate speech, lies, misinformation that could endanger people, etc. need to be very expensive and a glut of fines/complaints should result in a loss of their license.

The FCC also needs to give free air time to candidates, no matter the race, and ban campaign/political/party/special interest ads. That would help get some of the money out of these massive dark money holes.

If they wish to lie, spew bullshit, and incite hatred, they should not be allowed to call themselves reporters, use words like "news" and shouldn't dare think to use the word, "journalist." We need to make it expensive, counterproductive, and embarrassing for them to continue.

And the rest of that is just authoritarian fantasy.

The best way to mitigate is to boycott and persuade others to stop watching. That’s it.

And, just an fyi, more Democrats watch Fox News than MSNBC. It’s funny, but it’s true (source: Nielsen MRI Fusion data). Survey after survey show Democrats tuning in. Entertainment? Hate watching? Who knows.

But maybe people should start there. I don’t watch Fox News. I only hear about what goes on there from DU. Which is a bit illustrative.

Amazing how a newbie wants to shred the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, I wonder just how many other Amendment's he/she wants shredded.

That is the right wing framing of the issue. Monopoly is the issue, media consolidation. Anti-trust law governs that, not the First Amendment.

Because you seem wholly ignorant of the 1A, this is all about the 1A whether or not you agree.

I was born in the US. Trump, and Fox say that doesn't matter.

I am not ignorant of the First Amendment, I am saying that is not relevant to this debate. You haven't addressed that. There are campaign donation violation issues and anti-trust issues, and of course civil defamation issues as well, some of which have been litigated, but most of which have not.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the public interest, not to protect Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Murdoch et al from the public.

I appreciate the lively discussion.



I would only ask that you consider my point of view, and I will strive to consider yours.

The FCC has no authority over cable. You can't revoke something that isn't required to begin with.

Most of the rest of your suggestions would fall afoul of the First Amendment

You people just want to tear people apart and call me a fucking Nazi too? Fine, I will not participate again.

Hope everyone enjoyed alienating someone last night.

I'm gone.

This is the paradox of tolerance. Eventually they will get enough support to shut down the tolerance altogether.

Promoting fascist propaganda should be treated the same as creating and distributing child porn. Hundreds of millions of people dead in a world war because of fascism/Nazism. it is a bankrupt ideology that should not be allowed to be promoted.

let's say it happens, next it could be any liberal/progressive news station, website, etc, including DU.
We have a 1A in this country and I'm not in favor of just letting it get shredded and I am flabbergasted that many here want to shit on the 1A just because they don't agree with a viewpoint, that's what tyrants do, not liberals/progressives.

I don't know if there was ever a more fierce defender of the First Amendment than Justice Douglas. Yet he said that the First Amendment does not exempt media outlets from anti-trust enforcement. The intention of the First Amendment is to protect the public's right to access to information, not to protect the interests of a few billionaires.

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States (1969)

In Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling affirming that an agreement between two Tucson newspapers violated federal antitrust laws and that the Justice Department was correct in requiring that the two papers act independently of each other. In so doing, it made it clear that the First Amendment did not exempt news organizations from antitrust laws.

First Amendment does not exempt the press from antitrust laws

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the newspapers were, indeed, guilty of the violations as charged. He cited insufficient evidence to support a “failing company” defense — that in the course of liquidating the Citizen, the Star was the only available purchaser.

He also noted that the First Amendment does not support the trade restraints imposed by the joint operating agreement; that is, the First Amendment does not exempt papers from laws aimed at preserving competition.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/citizen-publishing-co-v-united-states/

of which Faux operates on and the FCC has no authority over those venues.
Faux Snooze corp. can start all the websites they want without a license because, again, the FCC has no control over those venues.
I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to understand this.

You are avoiding my point.

I am not saying the FCC does or does not have jurisdiction over this or that activity. I am saying that it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, as is talk about the First Amendment.

the OP said Faux needs to be dismantled, that's what this whole conversation is about, she hasn't come back to clarify what was meant by dismantling, does she mean the govt. banning faux?
Until she clarifies, then the logical assumption would mean that the govt should shut them down, which is wholly a violation of the 1A.

Dismantling Fox News is an anti-trust issue, not the First Amendment. Opposition to that position comes mostly from the right wing.

The First Amendment does not exempt businesses from anti-trust action, according to one of the most stalwart defenders of the First Amendment ever, Justice William O. Douglas.

FDR understood that the new "economic royalists" had become the greater threat to freedom, and that the government was the proper tool for remedying that - on behalf of the working class people. That is a key distinction that all Democrats should embrace, in my opinion. Citing the law as though it were neutral is definitely anti-working class, especially now with the domination of all aspects of our lives by monopoly capitalism and the corruption of the government by monopolists.

she hasn't come back to clarify, so, like me, you're making an assumption.
So, why hasn't the Faux corp. been taken to court over your assertion that Faux is doing what you claim?
Even during the Biden Admin, that didn't happen, gee, I wonder why.

I know what I meant with my posts, and I know that the OP is disturbed by the effect of Fox News ad the right wing propaganda machine on our politics. I share that view. Do you?

Why have politicians not fought back harder on our behalf with anti-trust action? Is that what you are asking? Er, um, because they are beholden to their big money donors? I dunno, just spitballing here.

This is not a freedom of the press issue, it is a monopoly issue. The problem is media consolidation. The right wingers want to make this a freedom of the press issue. Don't be fooled.

against propaganda will be gleefully turned against those who tell a truth that our oligarchs do not like. That which a moral anti-authoritarian side uses judiciously will be used frequently and callously by the authoritarians.


I think that, in a democracy, the only effective counter to propaganda is the education of the people. Unfortunately that is a long term process and we are very far behind.

The answer to abuse of free speech is more speech.

The counterspeech doctrine is a belief, not even a hypothesis.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, joined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote in 1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

And as a unanimous Supreme Court - including Justices Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas, and William Brennan -- stated in 1974: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated."

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

Mass media is already "gleefully turned against those who tell a truth that our oligarchs do not like." The wealthy are already in power, already abusing and exploiting us. Fighting back is not equivalent to that, it is the remedy. Don't fall for the right wing propaganda about his. They are playing people.

That argument has been used against every progressive movement throughout history. "If we free the slaves, they will make white people into slaves" is the classic example.

"Don't fight back against the bully, or he might bully you." Um, he is already bullying us.

Taking away the power of money over the media and the government will not harm the working class people, quite to the contrary.

Exactly right

Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided years ago that lying was protected under the 1st amendment.

Here's a couple excellent places to start:

How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them

and

Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future

both by Jason Stanley

Dismantling monopolies, not "media outlets." That promotes freedom, it doesn't suppress it.

The people who need to see or read that, won't.

Well then, we might as well shut down DU, if I'm preaching to the choir. Magas? No, they won't see or read books like these, because they don't read, period. I think we assume that we all know what these terms mean, like Fascism, and Communism, and Socialism. But there just might be someone who really wants to be able to recognize Fascism, to understand what it really means. At the end of WWII, mankind said never again, yet here we are again! It seems to be sticking it's ugly head up all over the world all of a sudden. I rest.

calling out, challenging, and discrediting them as some 'legitimate' news source, which, as others have pointed out, hasn't happened in any meaningful way.

While Trump goes about vilifying and suing news sources like CBS for truthful reporting, while he calls news sources the "enemy" and his mouthpiece threatens prosecution for 'disclosures critical of Trump,'

Fux continues to disseminate propaganda, distortions, hate speech, and outright lies.

Sue THEM. Boycott their sponsors. Publicly call them out and discredit them for the charlatans they are.

you are so right. I couldn't agree more. Focksnooze (aka: Fox News) has a simple business model. Tell a certain segment of society what they feel they want to hear each and every day. A little racism here, a little bigotry there and so on and so forth. Year after year. You know, it's the old 'hook, line and sinker' trick. Low educated people are the most susceptible and there are plenty to them everywhere in the US. These people watch and go, "Marge, come see this! They're saying what I've been saying all along on the TV here." Fox playing right into their empty skulls. To these imbeciles, they see it as positive reinforcement to be a racist/bigot. So they keep watching, year after year. Whatever Focksnooze says... they abide by no matter what.

I'm just going to start calling them "zombies"! (Key "The Cranberries".)

Do you recall what France did in past history..........(Guillotine ?????)

Fair is Fair.......they brought a Hangman's gallows to their "Party" on January Sixth......and I truly believe that if they had succeeded at controlling the Capitol, they were all chanting "Hang Pence" and "Hang Pelosi" and might have possibly done just that...

Burn it to the ground.

I don't see that happening any time soon... that might be something I would donate to 😹😁

yeah, OK

Is powerful enough to shut down MSNBC and CNN...

Is that OK?

No idea how their ratings are so high, but here we are.

Concentrate on things we can change.

About 5% of the adult population if you look at their ratings.

Would be best to just ignore it.

beggars would ride.

Fox News, like America, "is what it is," and what it is, indeed, is FARCE.
Obvious unwillingness of the government to do so aside, the governors of New York or Burbank aren't going to dismantle it, as it is considered by the establishment to be profitable to keep the mouthpiece for the Trump administration around. These media channels are essentially corporate evangelists, spreading the gospel of their highest bidders and political backers while staying fattened by advertising.

A thought to consider, for any who would develop upon it, would be a peaceful march or occupation of the Fox News/Media buildings or facilities. Just have as many people gather in those places as physically possible, with no more premise needed than it being an overbooked tour group. Just looking around, admiring all the, uh, decor...and office supplies, and broadcasting equipment. Whoever's there beforehand can just leave (it would be better to do the occupation before the buildings open), and if the broadcasting stations happen to just...stop working forever, then that would be an incidental bonus.

Sure, this would likely lead to similar "tours" of other media establishments, but those became compromised by sanewashing and giving normalizing coverage of Trump's actions and platform beforehand, in the interests of corporate private interests, their apocalyptic evangelists, and their federalist republican beneficiaries (as well as, it should not be forgotten, their enablers that compromised in the name of money). These entities comprise the Federalist American Republics of Corporate Evangelists, which is what our "United" States are destined to become (were they not already, in the case of the ruby-red states) and what in many ways have already embodied: FARCE. The leaders of the Farce, the wealthy and their enforcers and peasants, are tethered to their finances, and since their nominal opponents in the government are desperate for money, our "representatives" will not move for us. They may tell us where we can walk and what doors to open, but they cannot keep us from doing so as long as we have the will. Doing so may not be considered "civil," but civilization is at risk if those who would turn its physical presence into a cartoon (ICE reality show, ding ding?) are allowed to operate.

Plus it would be a useful comparison for anyone with half a mind: given the precedent of just stuffing the Fox News buildings full of people, what would their viewers do? We already know, but if you want to wake people up from the nightmare of the Farce, and if much of what the voting population is enabled by the garbage spouted by the electronic babysitter...you need to turn the babysitter off. That still leaves the social media giants, but...thoughts for another time, perhaps.

Use this observation soundly, or pass it on to others who will.
Go in peace, and make real the future of the free world.

n/t

By who?