Fox News Needs to Be Shut Down

[Tonus]

As much as I dislike Faux News, I like authoritarian suppression of speech even less.

Indeed. The problem with handing the government that kind of power is that it assumes that someone with a supportive point of view will take over and be in a position to wield it. What happens if we give the president sweeping executive power over the media and the nation elects a far-left/right candidate and an equally nutty VP? In scenario A, Fox News gets shut down and Bill O'Reilly gets deported. In scenario B, Fox News becomes your only news source and Bill O'Reilly becomes the next Ed Sullivan and Koch TV becomes a thing.

[Gawdzilla]

One interesting thing about Faux News is that the second largest stockholder is a Saudi prince. "True American" channel?

[popeyespappy]

Freedom of the press is fine as long as the press is presenting facts or opinions. However when the press starts misrepresenting facts (lying) the government has a responsibility to the people to do something about it. Unfortunately some dumb as corporate owned judge has already ruled that the first amendment protects the right of the press to lie to the public in a case involving Fox news. So much for government for the people.

[Minimalist]

It's not state-owned but Fux is responsible for promoting the agenda of the US gov't.

Only if there is a republicunt in the white house.

[Elskidor]

Freedom of the press is fine as long as the press is presenting facts or opinions. However when the press starts misrepresenting facts (lying) the government has a responsibility to the people to do something about it. Unfortunately some dumb as corporate owned judge has already ruled that the first amendment protects the right of the press to lie to the public in a case involving Fox news. So much for government for the people.

That's pretty much my opinion. I wouldn't shed a tear if it was shut down for they are crooks and liars. How many times can you get caught purposely lying before something changes? Be biased if you must, but not criminal.

[ManMachine]

In America, six large media corporations have near-total control of all news that Americans receive. All of these corporations suck and give biased and at times false reporting, but there are certain media outlets that are worse than others.
This spectrum goes from the least bad, CNN, to what is the most terrible and tasteless excuse for journalism out there, Fox News, or as I like to call it, Fux "News."
Whenever a hateful, bigoted right-wing view is expressed on American television it is almost always from Fux. Fux News is out there to deceive the people into supporting bullshit neoliberal policies that end up making the rich even richer at the expense of America's poor, supporting America's international imperialist agenda, spewing hate speech against gays, blacks, immigrants and other minorities, and and dismissing issues like police brutality and the ineffectiveness of the War of Drugs.
This is why I think it'd be necessary to revoke Fux "News"' broadcasting license for good. Some may say that it is a violation of freedom of the press. I call bullshit. If anything, fucking corporate media is too blame for violations of press freedom due to its self-censorship and absolute reliance on the US gov't as a source. These US "news" outlets are nothing more than de-facto state media. They hinder reporting that is actually accurate.
Shutting down a state-owned Soviet radio station would be no more of a violation of press freedom than shutting down Fux "News" or any other of the big six corporate media outlets.

There's no such thing as a media without bias.

MM

[Gawdzilla]

It's not state-owned but Fux is responsible for promoting the agenda of the US gov't.

Only if there is a republicunt in the white house.

Very true. Faux News attacks Obama because he's a Democrat. Nothing more need be said for their "go for the throat" reportage to kick in. The whole thing is a platform for the GOP's campaigning.

[Minimalist]

So much for government for the people.

That was bullshit when Lincoln said it.

[TaraJo]

I'm torn on this issue.

On one hand, I'd really hate to revoke the freedom of speech from someone. Usually, if it's someone as stupid as Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly, the best way to counter their hate is by letting them speak. Then, when they get crazy enough, the rest of the world will realize how crazy they are. The old line about giving them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be working here. They have fringe, extremist, bizarro crazy guys like Alex Jones coming along and, suddenly, compared to that, Glen Beck seems downright moderate and even reasonable.

Perhaps it would be nice if news stations had to meet a certain criteria with fact checking. Say, at least 80% of what they say has to be proven correct by a fact checker or they don't get to call themselves a news source or something along those lines. I mean, I don't mind they saying stupid shit, but it scares me when people hear their stupid shit and take it seriously.

[psychoslice]

I take all news with a grain of salt, no matter where it comes from, I think we all need to read between the words, and not just believe anything we are told, that's how they want us to think.