Vēritās wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:06 pm
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:44 am
I don’t think Fox is a friend to the Democratic order. That doesn’t mean I think that the government should decide that it isn’t really news media and force it to run a disclaimer.
Why not? Why can't we have actual standards like we used to? Oh, because it will makes us Nazi Germany? Give us a break, Res.
This demonstrates such a level of ignorance about the history and meaning of freedom of the press that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, there are “standards” in the form of well defined limits on freedom of the press. Second, the Fairness Doctrine was an aberration in freedom of the press. It was constitutional only because the airwaves were deemed “public” rather than “private” and because there were a relatively small number of frequencies available for use. Technology has gone far beyond those justifications for governmental control over the content of TV and Radio News. Fox News is delivered through privately owned cable or fiber optic networks, so there is no equivalent of the “public” airwaves today. Nor is television limited to a few available frequencies today, so the scarcity rationale no longer applies. The vast majority of freedom of the press jurisprudence was developed with respect to the dissemination of newspapers and other printed materials. And there is zero chance that any Supreme Court would find an attempt by the government to determine which publications are and are not “news” and force the publisher to publish the state’s determination of which publications are “news” and which are not. And there is zero reason to expect that broadcast news will be treated any differently today. So, the reason we can’t have the fairness doctrine back has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis. It’s because the founders saw the danger in giving the state the power to control the content of the press.
The relevance of autocrats totalitarians is that they provide us with historical lessons. You keep simply ignoring the role that government control of the press plays in the ability of autocrats to capture the state. Do you really want to give DeSantis, Mconnell, and McCarthy the power to decide which publications/programs are “news” and force the others to print/say we’re not news? If the answer is anything but an unqualified “yes,” that should be a clue that you don’t really want what you think you want.
Res Ipsa wrote:Veritas pines for the Fairness Doctrine, but he has a short historical memory. Newspapers, through their lifetimes, have been partisan as hell.
Veritas wrote:Now you're just buying into the FOX News BS which it uses to justify their overtly partisan propaganda. The media was NEVER half as Liberal as FOX is Conservative.
Ah, your all purpose excuse for dismissing arguments you don’t like. How about you link to some of that sweet Fox propaganda about the historical partisanship of NEWSPAPERS. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. To be a partisan as newspapers have been historically, Trump would have to own Fox and Biden would have to own CNN. Politicians owned newspapers and used them to mercilessly attack their opponents. You’ve proved exactly what I said: short historical memory. Now, find me a case where the Supreme Court allowed the government to control the contents of those publications. I’ll wait.
Veritas wrote:Even FOX knew they had to push the envelope slowly. In the beginning they said they would be "fair and balanced" and they even had a show called "Hannity and Combs." But that gradually went away and nowadays they make no secret about being Republican headquarters. Their primetime hosts are showing up at Republican fundraisers, speaking at political rallies, applying for jobs with the Trump administration, former Trump administration personalities always end up getting side gigs on FOX, and vice versa. Why can't you just admit the obvious on this? At this point there is no hope in hell FOX can be expected to operate like a legitimate News outlet.
Your concept of “legitimate news outlet” has zero to do with freedom of the press. Do some research on newspapers owned by political candidates.
Res Ipsa wrote:Look at the old battles between Hearst and his competitors. The partisanship in newspapers was blatant, and I’m sure you can find both sides accusing each other of lying or threatening the country.
Veritas wrote:There has never been anything remotely similar to the power of FOX news and its ability to create entire armies of hateful citizens, which is coming closer and closer to a majority who
believe we're headed for a civil war. Thanks to FOX's constant indoctrination of millions of Americans,
one in four Americans believe violence against the government is justified. That's a threat to national security.
Feel free to persuade the Supreme Court that the government be allowed to control the content of Fox News because it is persuasive. Given the media’s hyping of the divide between Americans, I’m not surprised that Americans would be worried about the prospect of a civil war. Or that some folks would tell that to a pollster to own the libs.
And Americans get to believe that violence against the government is justified under some circumstances. It’s in our national DNA. We’re a country that was born in violent resistance to government. Are you seriously taking the position that there are no circumstances under which you would take some kind of violent action against the government? You’d just peacefully comply with a fascist takeover of the American government? Regardless, what people tell a pollster is not a threat to national security. We don’t have thought crime — at least not yet.
Veritas wrote:And we're not even scratching the surface when you consider all the damage it did during the pandemic and the conspiracy nonsense it pushed that effectively killed tens of thousands of Americans who refused to get vaccinated.
And? At some point, people are responsible for their own bad decisions. No one is forced to watch Fox. No one is forced to believe what Fox says. I don’t like it. I think it’s tragic. But do you seriously believe that people who rejected the vaccines are going to look at a government mandated disclaimer and say “Huh. I guess the CDC is right. I’m gonna run right out and get me that shot?” Seriously? The people you’re talking about don’t trust the government to begin with. Why would you think they’d trust the government’s opinion about Fox News? The more likely result would be to inflame the people you’re scared of.
Veritas wrote:Sorry Res, but you're just flat out wrong.
Given the sheer number of opinions I’ve expressed in this thread, it’s almost a certainty that I’m wrong about something. But you’ve demonstrated almost no understanding of what I said, so it’s hard to evaluate your claim. I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong about the Constitutional basis of the fairness doctrine, the history of first amendment jurisprudence, and the partisan nature of newspapers in our history, and the role of governmental control of the press in the capture of government by autocrats. If I am, you sue haven’t offered any evidence to that effect.
Veritas wrote:There is no way around the fact that FOX represents a threat to this nation.
So you’re claiming I’m wrong about a claim I’ve never made? There should be some kind of word for attacking a position that the other party never took. That would be really handy.
Lots of things are threats to this nation. Being a threat, in and of itself, doesn’t mean the government is entitled to ignore the constitution. Again, lots of the people you are talking about view you and your political beliefs as a threat to the nation. How much power are you willing to give them to give the government to suppress the ability to communicate?
Veritas wrote:The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So much so that their "hard news" folks like Chris Wallace and Shep Smith have left the building because it has no room for actual news reporting anymore. It is a complete dumpster fire now full of nothing but partisan hackery and blind devotion to a push towards autocracy.
So? I’ve told you about the historical examples. The government lacks the constitutional power to fight partisan hackers or dumpster fires in the press by controlling what it publishes. The Supreme Court’s remedy for what you describe is more information — not governmental control of what the press says.
Res Ipsa wrote:I’m very resistant to giving the state the power to decide what is “legitimate news” and what is not.
Veritas wrote:And yet, we regulate requirements to practice medicine, practice law, we set standards so not anyone who opens up a "school" can say they're accredited, etc. What country do you actually live in? Look around you. We regulate just about everything and for good reason. We also regulate speech. You can't stand in the middle of town square and scream racial slurs without being arrested. But you can go on FOX and say as much racist garbage as you want. Freedom of the press shouldn't be taken lightly, but "the press" doesn't apply to just anyone with a blog now does it? Why does the Press briefing never include people asking questions from GQ magazine or Sports Illustrated? Because they're not News. Same is true for FOX News. They manufacture news and use it to make Americans hateful, resentful and violent towards others. This is proven by the fact that every time they're being sued for defamation their lawyers argue in court that it is ridiculous to think people actually believe they're telling the truth. As the article I referenced shows, by presenting themselves as "news" as opposed to the political outfit that they truly are, they are able to rake in money from cable outlets in ways political outlets cannot. Why you think it should be OK for them to keep lying about who they truly are is beyond me. Their own CEO admitted as much. They're a political outlet, but because they have "News" in their name this means I'm subsidizing them whether I like it or not. As long as I'm subscribed to Direct TV (which I am because I want to watch all NFL football games) I'm paying FOX News money every month. They're making so much damned money that they can even run their prime time shows commercial free to serve their agenda of keeping their audience in the dark on current events. That's quite literally the OPPOSITE of what legitimate news outlets are supposed to do.
Nice rant. What you’re overlooking is the there is no Constitutional right to free doctor or free lawyer. That’s an important distinction. Here’s how limited the government is when it comes to the press: it’s unconstitutional to require a license as a condition of disseminating printed information. Now go make your argument to any liberal judge you can find that the government has the constitutional authority to tell the press what to print or regulate the content of publications. Maybe you’ll listen to them.
by the way, I’ve never said it’s okay to lie. I don’t think it is. But that says nothing about whether the government has the constitutional authority to do what you propose or even whether it’s a good idea. Right now, only one Supreme Court Justice has taken the position that lies have no Constitutional protection. So maybe you and Justice Thomas can put your heads together and persuade four other justices that government has the authority to decide what is true and block the press from publishing anything but the government determined official truth. Again, the Court’s remedy for bad speech is more speech, not government regulation of speech.
Pro tip: your problem with who your cable company includes in its packages is a first world problem with no Constitutional remedy. There is no legal or constitutional right to receive only those channels you want and no others. Besides, can’t you cut the cord and buy a football package though AppleTv, Amazon, Roku, etc.
Veritas wrote:On a personal note, I hold FOX News entirely accountable for the fact that I haven't been able to have an honest to goodness sincere conversation with either my Mom or Dad in the past 20 years. Because everything in their universe is filtered through FOX News outrage. Just recently, we couldn't even talk about my kids trying to get into a certain University without them going off on a rant about how Sean Hannity tells them about how the system is racist against White people! "They'll never get a chance to get in because the Liberals rigged the system against us." The school is actually 78% white and when I told them that they went off on me in front of their grandchildren about being a communist for not voting for Trump.
I’m genuinely sorry to hear that your family is divided by politics in this manner.
Res Ipsa wrote:That doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to counter disinformation. But giving government control over the press isn’t gonna end well.
Veritas wrote:No one said anything about taking control. Good grief Res, you're better than this. I was very clear in what I said. There was a time when FOX News would never have been able to get away with all the damage it is doing to the fabric of American society. The question is how much damage should they be allowed to do before someone does something? Just in the past five years we've seen untold numbers of Americans die because of misinformation from FOX and we've seen a serial sexual predator and career con artist get elected President because, thanks to FOX, more people hate now Clinton than they do rape or adultery.
I honestly have no opinion on how good I am. But I simply disagree that what you are proposing is not government control over the press. As soon as we give the government the power to dictate what the press says, that’s control. And I think you’re foolish to deny it. Giving the government the power to control the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment is a BFD, and we shouldn’t Kid ourselves about the cost.
There is an established constitutional limit on speech that presents a bona fide clear and present danger to the country. But there’s an immediacy requirement that it’s going to be tough for you to meet. When Biden used the bully pulpit to call out the MAGA republicans, was there blood in the streets or a ton of whining?
The insurrectionists who broke the law on January 6 are being prosecuted and many are doing jail time. Has the MAGA army attacked the Prison to liberate them? Or has there been a combination of bluster and whining? Federal law enforcement is all over militia groups. I’m not seeing any evidence that there is a genuine threat of civil war.
What I see is you fomenting fear and outrage in response to Fox stoking fear and outrage. I understand your outrage, especially given the situation with your parents. But what the country is faced with is a problem - a serious problem. And what we need is calm, thoughtful approaches to try and solve the problem rather than amp each other up with counter outrage. The last thing we need is to engage in government overreach because we worked ourselves into a panic.
Do you think the President is pushing his pants over Fox News? Do you see what he didn’t do? He didn’t try and use the coercive power of the federal government to dictate anything to the press. And note whose pissing his pants in fear? Hawkeye. Bullies can’t take what they dish out, and the reaction of the MAGAS to Biden’s speech indicates to me that most of them are blustering bullies. The F your feelings crowd has its fee fees hurt by stuff Biden said. Frankly I think that’s evidence that most of the threat is actually bluster. Where there is an actual threat, I think we let the FBI and DOJ handle that.
So, if you want to characterize my argument accurately, it looks like this:
1. What you propose isn’t constitutional.
2. There is no reason to believe that what you propose will make the problem better.
3. There is good reason to believe that what you propose will make the problem worse.
4. If Fox actually qualifies as a clear and present danger, the remedy is criminal prosecution, not controlling what they say.
5. There is only so much the government has the power to do in terms of saving people from themselves. (You don’t have to like it.)
6. I’ve suggested in a response to Honor a change that might pass constitutional muster and have some effect — conditioning the Tucker Carlson defense on running a disclaimer. I don’t know that it would be constitutional, but it has a much better chance than trying to force them to run a disclaimer. And it puts some pressure on the pocketbook.
My apologies for the typos, but it’s late and I’m posting from my phone.