Soros Liberal Front Group Asks FCC to Cancel Fox Television's Licenses

" They've tried and failed repeatedly to install the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means of using the government to silence conservatives, now a George Soros-connected "ethics" group is taking another route to censorship. "

Newsbusters.com

The Hill reports that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is asking the Federal Communications to cancel Fox's broadcasting licenses in the United States because of the phone hacking scandal involving a newspaper owned by a sister company utterly separate from it in the United Kingdom.

Calling CREW merely an “ethics watchdog group,” The Hill reports that CREW “sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday, arguing that U.S. law states that broadcast airwaves shall only be licensed to people of 'good character' and used 'in the public interest'.”

So one political party's opinions are fine, but another one's opinions are "unethical"? Sounds a lot like communism to me.

Would this not be biting the hand that feeds you, Because then all the liberal agendas in Family Guy, The Simpsons, ECT ECT will not be on the air!

I would love to see the fairness doctrine come back. Stations like MSNBC and Fox News would actually be fair and balanced for a change. As it is now, I can't see how anyone can watch that crap.

When are they going to cancel George Soros?

Would the old man just croak already? I mean really, what is he doing all of this for?

Putting aside your claims about this front group and the fact that they have previous tried and failed to have Fox's license pulled, the FCC's own rules dictate that they should pull the license.

The reason the group has tried to pull the license is because the FCC has a character standard for foreign entities broadcasting in the US. The group has cited this rule many times, but is always ignored (for obvious reasons). Now, a British report has concluded that Rupert Murdoch is not of "fit character" to lead the company. Unless the British have higher standards for character than the US, then the FCC should also find this to be so.

If this is so, then by the FCC's own rules, they need to pull Fox's license because it is being operated by a foreign entity which is not led by a person of good character.

That's how I understand it, at least.

ETA: I believe this rule only applies to media broadcasters, though I could be wrong about that. Will try to find my time is limited at the moment.

I like how American politics has to be the center of the debate on whether or not to pull Fox from the air, the actual reason for discussion the possibility of pulling them off is because of a scandal from the UK. Don't drag American politics into it, there are more reasons to take Fox off the air than how biased people think the MSM is.



Everything said about socialism flies out the window when you realize Fox is getting taken down for illegal information gathering techniques, violating the privacy of others.

Rupert Murdoch would be the Big Brother in this case, using ill-gotten information to further his companies agendas.

The Government isn't always the bad guy, corporations that act unethically have to face a backlash.

The Fairness Doctrine?

You mean going back to how it was before Reagan when people couldn't be brainwashed by one way of thinking as is currently done so they keep voting against their own best interests?

yeah sounds evil.

Evil Soros.


Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are saints! GOD BLESS THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

I have no sympathy for FOX. They did, after all, cancel Firefly. Off with their heads, I say!

reply to post by Daedal


There is an active thread on this subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TsukiLunar


I love your priorities .

I loved that show, too.

****on to the topic****

Fairness doctrine, really? I that what it was? All the news sounding the same...saying it the same way... No disagreement with the editors in charge allowed.

that's the reason FoxNews, and before them, CNN became so successful. They offered/offer something different. the problem most have with FoxNews, and CNN is that both have an obvious editorial slant.

But we have choices. With the fairness doctrine, choice goes out the window.

Originally posted by Daedal
" They've tried and failed repeatedly to install the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means of using the government to silence conservatives[...]

So, then, would the Fairness Doctrine only apply to conservatives? Because I always thought it would also apply to liberals. so why would liberals try to "hurt" conservatives with something they themselves would be required to adhere to?

reply to post by nunya13

So, then, would the Fairness Doctrine only apply to conservatives? Because I always thought it would also apply to liberals. so why would liberals try to "hurt" conservatives with something they themselves would be required to adhere to?

It applies to everyone of course.

Fox News certainly wouldn't want to this to happen though. If people were presented with the other opinion(s), many would see through the BS.

Sean Hannity is scared of the Fairness Doctrine. He cries about it more than anyone. He wouldn't be able to get away with the lies anymore.

The only other option to the Fairness Doctrine is to make it a criminal offense for any type of show that deliberately states lies to further an agenda.

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


Ah yes, wasn't there a court case way back that actually rendered it "okay" for media companies to lie, or to not be held liable for saying purposeful falsehoods?

It is already totally unbelievable what they are doing and they want to push the envelope even further, but with the way the world has been going, it isn't much of a surprise

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior

 

Ah yes, wasn't there a court case way back that actually rendered it "okay" for media companies to lie, or to not be held liable for saying purposeful falsehoods?

It is already totally unbelievable what they are doing and they want to push the envelope even further, but with the way the world has been going, it isn't much of a surprise

Yes, and it was ............................... guess who !

The Media Can Legally Lie

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

Hmmmm Soros Fox News?

Sounds like a Nazi trying to burn some books agian.

Soros is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Maybe he can buy Fox America !!



What an oxymoron that would create !!

reply to post by alienreality

Ah yes, wasn't there a court case way back that actually rendered it "okay" for media companies to lie, or to not be held liable for saying purposeful falsehoods?

This is the reason we need something that holds media accountable. I think it's pretty fair to state, hardcore Fox Viewers or hardcore MSNBC viewers will be willing to accept a lie told by the that outlet without ever checking otherwise, even if it seems outlandish.

For many, it's easier to accept a lie because it lines up with their own beliefs of what they want to be true.

At one time or another, everyone has been guilty of this. And why is that? Everyone listens to what they want to hear, and when what we listen to isn't being honest with us, then we ourselves cannot have an honest discussion nationally.

I don't understand why conservatives and/or Republicans are so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine. You'd think they would welcome it with open arms as they would be able to prove to all the liberals out there on how they are correct in every way and liberals are wrong. IMO, the reason they won't do this is that they will lose on many issues should people hear both sides of the story.

They don't want to have to acknowledge the other side, and when they do, it's always an idiot that is purposely there to make the other side look stupid.

I could rip Hannity a new one in an argument, most people here could that know a few things. Ironic how you rarely see anyone able to go up against him that can eh?

reply to post by neo96

Hmmmm Soros Fox News? Sounds like a Nazi trying to burn some books agian.

Soros could start his own media empire if he wanted to, he has the money. He's given 7 Billion dollars in charities alone.

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


Who cares?

Still can't buy a soul with all that money that fascist Nazi collaborator.