Re: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal
- From: Mike Pritchard <mrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:42:13 -0600
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal
Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a
"policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report
after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
Could there be 2 sets of rules/laws? One for TV and one for Radio? I'll admit my knowledge is more in the
radio area....and I'm almost certain that the old language did read, as if it was a viloation of the law,
to intentionally mislead. Hmmm....
Regardless, I do have to wonder how that would hold up against a "policy" decision by the FCC then....and a
decision to write a major fine for something that violates their "policy?"
If the fine was handed out to an individual station, they could fight it--by using the above reasoning.
But....since the FCC solely issues a station's license to broadcast, a violation of their policy is
certainly sufficient cause to revoke the station's license.
Things must have changed, since I got my FCC license back in 1976 (Radio-Telephone 3rd Class Operator's
Permit, for working in the radio biz). Well....maybe not. It's all about the language. FCC docs say "it
is not permissible...." I guess technically, that means you can't do it, but it's not illegal?
Nuts....you can't say certain words on the air, but you can intentionally lie about news stories?
- Prev by Date: Re: A recovering Republican explains
- Next by Date: Re: Rebel 20 Tube Compliment?
- Previous by thread: Re: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal
- Next by thread: Re: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal