House Democrats Go Fox Hunting

There is no 'fake news' exception to the First Amendment.

By
36

When elected officials browbeat the executives of regulated telecom, video, and app companies trying to get them to drop the main news channel of the political opposition—which also happens to be the most popular channel in its market—you may think you’re living in an arbitrary strong-arm regime. But it’s happening this week in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both California Democrats, sent a letter on congressional letterhead to top executives of various cable, satellite, and communications companies, including Alphabet, the parent of Google, which distributes video via its YouTube TV streaming service and Google Play app.

The letter denounces Fox News, as well as newer competitors to its right such as Newsmax and One America News Network, as purveyors of misinformation and extremism. And it gets directly to the point with its demands: “Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News [and the others] … both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?”

The tone of threat is not idle. Both Eshoo and McNerney are majority members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which draws up legislation and oversees regulation relevant to cable and telecom providers and technology firms generally. (Fox News and the others mentioned generally do not broadcast over publicly shared airwaves, the scarcity of which was the original rationale for federal broadcast regulation.)

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
36
By
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    There certainly is a problem with right wing media spreading lies and misinformation and I can see the Congress members' frustration, but their suggestion that the cable service providers should try to do something to stop the lying and misinformation is only going to create the problems pointed out in this article.

    On the other hand, "UnFox your cable box" may have the right idea. If consumers are disgusted enough about their cable subscription including Fox News/that they are helping support Fox News, they can try to exert pressure on the cable providers to not renew their contracts with Fox when they come due in 2021. After all, even though many advertisers have dropped the most egregious Fox programs, Fox doesn't depend on advertising to the extent it depends on cable subscriptions. https://unfoxmycablebox.com

    Of course it would take a huge number of people requesting Fox not be on their cable menu to make a difference.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Another case of people confusing the difference between something that's legal and something that's wrong. Publishing misinformation or "fake news" is wrong. It needs to be fought. However, freedom of speech is a core value for a democracy. Trying to make the government arbiter of media content compromises that value, and perpetrates another wrong. Partisans seem completely incapable of imagining that their viewpoint is contestable, or imagining the implications of what they see as reasonable exceptions to core principles if they were embraced by the other side.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    This is a distressing topic for discussion. Freedom of religion, speech, and the press are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. It is 1st before the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified had all not agreed that a Bill of Rights be one of the first issues debated by the first Congress. It is important.

    Distressing? Many of our Universities have speech codes. That is damn near an oxymoron. Some of our K12 schools teach such dribble as ‘Creationism,’ and ‘The 1619 Project.’ Is it any wonder people succumb to ridiculous postulations or lies?

    Print and electronic media alike abuse the truth on a regular basis. All ‘frequencies’ of the political spectrum participate. Who is to be excluded? Who is to choose? A few generations ago there were attempts to define and outlaw pornography. They were a failure. Many generations ago, activist agitated Congress to pass the 18th Amendment to outlaw alcoholic beverages. It was a failure. Attempting to select which speech to prohibit is a fool’s errand. It will be a failure. We are free people, and have the right to be stupid!

    Collapse
  4. jmr

    "Ruling party threatens telecom execs ..." How this would be reported if it happened in other countries. Thank you, Daniel, for your insightful comment.

    Government telling, influencing or regulating what media can or cannot say ... shades of Pravda in Soviet Russia and state controlled media in the CCP ... not a road we want to start down, regardless of what political party we associate with.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Daniel

    "Ruling party threatens telecom execs hosting popular opposition networks, demand an end to 'misinformation.'"

    How this would be reported if it happened in other countries.

    Collapse
  6. Scott N.

    I detest Newsmax, OANN, WND, and the other nutbar shops of the Right, but this is way out of line for these two congresscritters. Frankly, it's a great way to further radicalize the Right by providing real government suppression for people to point to.

    Collapse
  7. GregS

    Agree - I don't think Congress or the States should be getting in the middle of this at all. Let companies like Dominion and Smartmatic use libel and defamation law to exert some influence in the most egregious situations. The fake news issue is downstream of culture - as long as people are willing to engage in motivated reasoning, fake news will find a way to proliferate. The best thing for this would be the turning down of the temperature that is already occurring now that we don't have a sociopath in the White House.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jaliranchr

    I saw an article in the last couple of weeks (no, I can't find it) showing how much the various channels charge cable providers. The sports channels were the big winners, but amongst the cable news outlets, Fox charged the most, which is passed along to ALL cable subscribers. Yes, it goes back to the old argument about ala carte, but it is even more than that. If Fox doesn't get those fees from people who don't watch, and frankly, that includes a vast majority, they are up the creek because their advertising revenue is limited because of product.
    I haven't had satellite (only thing available, here) for years, but I have been a streamer for several years. Packages keep escalating like satellite because the providers keep having to add things to have basics. How much longer can that continue? It feels like a reckoning is coming. We've heard rumblings about the sports channels facing this, and I imagine the news outlets will too.

    Collapse
  9. Scroop Moth

    “If so, why?” There’s no if. We know they’re going to carry trash. The why is obvious: money.

    I don’t believe it’s a bad thing for legislators to force economic powers to talk about subjects that may be embarrassing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      The Bell Tower

      This assumes our legislators do not share the stupidity of our media outlets - an extremely dubious assumption.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    wj

    There are far too many incentives pushing media, politicians and others towards disinformation. It's the most engaging kind of content after all. Like twinkies and cigarettes, its designed to be addicting, and to blow past your rational brain and burrow straight in the primitive parts and latch on.

    Thanks to mass media (social or otherwise), worldwide movements (even violent ones) can spawn in the flash of a pan, based on disinformation. Or even be manufactured. The scale at which this stuff spreads is a truly makes the challenges of speech to day a different class of problem. Differences in degree can be big enough to become differences in kind.

    So how do we disincentivize misinformation and disinformation? We really need to figure it out, or it might be the end of us.

    Collapse
Load More