PDA

View Full Version : FCC Violations on FOX NEWS????




Myerz
01-06-2008, 07:55 PM
Isn't there any legal recourse???

Or are they just willing to throw their motto of Fair and Balanced out the window, we know that's the truth...

Mark
01-06-2008, 07:59 PM
You would think so - before the debate FOX also gave them all tons of airtime in pre-interviews

all J's in IL for RP
01-06-2008, 08:01 PM
Fairness doctrine has to do with advertising, not on who the media has to cover (or invite).

werdd
01-06-2008, 08:04 PM
weve contacted the FCC, basicly they said fox can do whatever it wants, that includes lying and excluding presidential canidates. Unless they start saying the F word they dont care basicly.

Proemio
01-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Isn't there any legal recourse???

Or are they just willing to throw their motto of Fair and Balanced out the window, we know that's the truth...

They violate their contract (license) every time they turn on the power - all of them.
The FCC is there to protect them, just like FDA is there to protect Pharma, etc.
It's all part of why we have this revolution thing going... to oust the mountebanks.

me3
01-06-2008, 08:05 PM
This is not the Fox forum.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 08:32 PM
Its an FEC violation. Since the NH GOP isn't sponsoring, Fox is doing it on their own. Since they are doing it on their own, and leaving a candidate out, its a POLITICAL GIFT, and way over the 2,300 limit.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-06-2008, 08:35 PM
Its an FEC violation. Since the NH GOP isn't sponsoring, Fox is doing it on their own. Since they are doing it on their own, and leaving a candidate out, its a POLITICAL GIFT, and way over the 2,300 limit.

Interesting. Maybe. If true, who's going to enfoce that, though? And how?

all J's in IL for RP
01-06-2008, 08:49 PM
Its an FEC violation. Since the NH GOP isn't sponsoring, Fox is doing it on their own. Since they are doing it on their own, and leaving a candidate out, its a POLITICAL GIFT, and way over the 2,300 limit.

Then how is it that every time a candidate is interviewed on a cable news station, we don't also have the rest of the field suing? Besides, your candidate doesn't even agree with your rationale.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html

Take his cue. Get the message out in spite of Fox news. We know they're against us.

John P Slevin
01-06-2008, 08:51 PM
Ron Paul would not support telling FOX that they had to have him on or face government action.

It is fundamental to liberty that the lying so and so's at FOX should be allowed to spout their nonsense.

As for FCC sanctions, since FOX is cable I don't think those regs apply.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 08:53 PM
Interesting. Maybe. If true, who's going to enfoce that, though? And how?

Someone posted on it in a thread now buried about a week ago. Its a slightly different tact then the FCC violation, which we can also try like Kucinich. My only contribution to the FEC idea is that the NH GOP and FOX would keep pointing fingers at each other because the NH GOP would be violating party rules, while FOX would be violating finance law.

I think we should push this. I wrote the campaign a letter, I doubt they'll pay attention to it though, but if more people tell them they want a legal letter send with a press release tomorrow for FCC and FEC violations, it might be done. Very small price to pay for the media attention, and it will help us. IE cost the campaign a 1-2 thousand dollars to draft a legal letter and press release, and worth lots more then that in media and protest vote.

The violations are interesting in the long term for our boycott of Fox. If you research Fox, you will discover they also aren't paying any taxes, and probably should be investigated by the IRS as well. So attention over legal trouble won't help them any, and will hurt their stock as well.

Kucinich FCC filing
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200801051702DOWJONESDJONLINE000413_FORTUNE5.htm

Electrostatic
01-06-2008, 08:53 PM
Ron Paul would not support telling FOX that they had to have him on or face government action.

It is fundamental to liberty that the lying so and so's at FOX should be allowed to spout their nonsense.

As for FCC sanctions, since FOX is cable I don't think those regs apply.

Unfortunately, however, cable television != free market.
That makes it harder...

ando1brett
01-06-2008, 08:57 PM
FCC = another government department that uses taxpayer nothing....and does nothing.....just add them to the list of departments to get rid of.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Unfortunately, however, cable television != free market.
That makes it harder...

Nothing is protecting Fox from a massive FEC violation suit. If I can't give more then $2,300 to a candidate, they can't give millions.

This is no longer a NH GOP event, it was just free money to their preferred candidates.

NH GOP dropped them Saturday. That took away what FOX was hiding behind.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Someone posted on it in a thread now buried about a week ago. Its a slightly different tact then the FCC violation, which we can also try like Kucinich. My only contribution to the FEC idea is that the NH GOP and FOX would keep pointing fingers at each other because the NH GOP would be violating party rules, while FOX would be violating finance law.


Sure, but if it's going to be like a retraction from a newspaper, then it doesn't seem worth pursuing. We all know we're getting extremely shitty treatment, so I won't feel anything by having a court agree, and we won't gain anything by having a court agree 2 years from now. I guess we gotta run faster than them in some other way.

Electrostatic
01-06-2008, 09:03 PM
Nothing is protecting Fox from a massive FEC violation suit. If I can't give more then $2,300 to a candidate, they can't give millions.

This is no longer a NH GOP event, it was just free money to their preferred candidates.

I agree, although I still dislike the principle. If it wasn't for the fact that WE are limited in donations (both cash AND in kind), under threat of criminal charges, I would be for Fox being able to do whatever they want. (even though I would still despise them...)

But when we have to submit to unconstitutional restrictions and they do not, that is unbearable.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 09:04 PM
Sure, but if it's going to be like a retraction from a newspaper, then it doesn't seem worth pursuing. We all know we're getting extremely shitty treatment, so I won't feel anything by having a court agree, and we won't gain anything by having a court agree 2 years from now. I guess we gotta run faster than them in some other way.

For a billion dollar company, even a $700,000 fine isn't much, but there are two reasons for this:

a) Last minute get out the vote reminder for NH, the press will be a good reminder, so file the complaint tomorrow. Voters don't like things like this, so make sure its in the news.

b) Fox has other legal problems like the IRS. I don't think their stock can handle a long ranged campaign to make news of legal problems like this. Long range, this is a good opening shot.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 09:06 PM
Also, probably any lawyer could file the complaints not even directly related to the campaign, since it affects voters everywhere. But it needs to be done tomorrow to make the news in time.

ceakins
01-06-2008, 09:08 PM
weve contacted the FCC, basicly they said fox can do whatever it wants, that includes lying and excluding presidential canidates. Unless they start saying the F word they dont care basicly.

Not true. File a complaint like I just did.

ceakins
01-06-2008, 09:10 PM
File complaints now at:


http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/fcc475.cfm

This is my letter:

On January 6th, 2008, at 6PM PST, Fox News Channel violated Federal Communications Commission Rules (Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations) when they did not let Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter participate in a Republican Presidential Forum. These rules talk about equal access, and in my opinion Fox News Channel is trying to influence the presidential race by not including these other candidates in the forum.

Sincerely

Rules: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/political/candrule.htm



Section 73.1941 [47 CFR 73.1941] Equal Opportunities.

(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:



(1) Bona fide newscast;



(2) Bona fide news interview;



(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or



(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)



(b) Uses. As used in this section and 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.



(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.



(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.



(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]

Section 76.205 [47 CFR 76.205] Origination cablecasts by legally qualified candidates for public office; equal opportunities.



(a) General requirements. No cable television system is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any system shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such system shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:



(1) Bona fide newscast;



(2) Bona fide news interview;



(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or



(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of a system. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)



(b) Uses. As used in this section and 76.206, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 76.205 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.



(c) Timing of Request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the system within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the system or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.



(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no system shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any system make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to cablecast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

Electrostatic
01-06-2008, 09:11 PM
GAH, not FCC, FEC

Federal ELECTIONS Commission

In Kind contributions to political candidates GROSSLY exceeding $2300.

There own party has OFFICIALLY denied that this program was a political debate.

BeFranklin
01-06-2008, 09:16 PM
GAH, not FCC, FEC

Federal ELECTIONS Commission

In Kind contributions to political candidates GROSSLY exceeding $2300.

There own party has OFFICIALLY denied that this program was a political debate.

We need a lawyer from grassroots to file this since its so unfair. The blimp guys have an FEC lawyer, what about him?

I'm tired of us being limited to what we can give, and FOX can give anything they want. Also, check some sources like Wikipedia, Fox also isn't paying any income tax, but isn't being hauled off like the rest of us would be either.

This is an area of Fox that can't stand up to the light.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-06-2008, 09:28 PM
We need a lawyer from grassroots to file this since its so unfair. The blimp guys have an FEC lawyer, what about him?

I'm tired of us being limited to what we can give, and FOX can give anything they want. Also, check some sources like Wikipedia, Fox also isn't paying any income tax, but isn't being hauled off like the rest of us would be either.

This is an area of Fox that can't stand up to the light.

Ok. Who's the lawyer among us that's going to file? I can't imagine we don't have several lawyers among us. So, anyone wanna file or say why not?

fedup100
01-06-2008, 09:46 PM
weve contacted the FCC, basicly they said fox can do whatever it wants, that includes lying and excluding presidential canidates. Unless they start saying the F word they dont care basicly.

SOOO, you mean as long as they are a corporation they can use the Public airwaves to influence a national election and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. You mean fascism didn't come to America wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, it came to America as a private corporation that had laws past to allow it to openly and flagrantly commit treason by conspiring to overthrow your country before your very glazed over eyes? Where on earth is this in the Constitution? Who has read the national election laws?

Wow, if only Longshanks had incorporated and opened an media outlet, then Braveheart would have had to just put down his wittle sword and gone along home.

Now people, do you really think this is the case and we are helpless in stopping this. I promise you if some of us will put our heads together and do just a bit of research, we can beat them at this game..........I'm working on it

fedup100
01-06-2008, 09:55 PM
Ron Paul would not support telling FOX that they had to have him on or face government action.

It is fundamental to liberty that the lying so and so's at FOX should be allowed to spout their nonsense.

As for FCC sanctions, since FOX is cable I don't think those regs apply.

This is horse shit. Ron wouldn't want them to be forced, but since they are the only game in town, they have a monopoly and they are influencing. Read the conspiracy laws that the decider has put into place. These outfits are committing treason against the people and this Country nine ways from Sunday, in fact ,THEY ARE A RISK TO NATIONAL SECURITY AT THIS JUNCTURE!

FreedomWon
01-06-2008, 10:03 PM
I posted this earlier in another thread. I'd like to know how much money they would be liable for that would be taxed by the IRS.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-...i_b_80061.html


"By any standards of participation in debates, Fox News should take Rudy Giuliani out, and put Ron Paul in.

There are two obvious standards for inclusion versus exclusion in debate, first the number of real voters in a real state vote, and second the amount of real money donated by real people to the campaigns.

In Iowa, the only real state that has voted so far, Ron Paul kicked Rudy's butt in the voting. In campaign fundraising, Ron Paul appears set to kick Rudy's butt again.

In my view, Rudy, Ron Paul and Kucinich should all be included. But if Fox News insists on playing the censor of democracy, Paul should be in, Rudy should be out.

Otherwise, Fox should be forced to declare the expense of their debates to the FEC as campaign contributions.

If Giuliani ever does better in a primary or caucus than he did in Iowa, he could then be brought back into the debates.

Fair enough? "

itshappening
01-06-2008, 10:10 PM
this is VERY interesting from BeF and potentially massive FEC violations

McCain could be flouting his own law by accepting a massive political gift from Fox!

we really need an election lawyer to look at this

itshappening
01-06-2008, 10:27 PM
bumpity

ErikBlack
01-06-2008, 10:28 PM
You guys who propose legal action against Fox are an embarrassment to the Ron Paul campaign, the free market and the 1st amendment. Not only that you have absolutely no conception of how the law works and to hear you theorize about possible legal loopholes is hilarious! Seriously, are you a bunch of college kids sitting in a dorm, smoking a bong, and coming up with these ideas? If that is the case just say so. I'll understand then and I'll feel foolish for taking you so seriously. But if you tell me that you are a group of mature, educated adults and you actually believe the crap that is coming out of your mouth I'm gonna go dunk my head in the toilet water for 5 minutes and prey that when I come up for air this has all been a bad dream.

OF COURSE FOX IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE ELECTION RESULTS! Everybody is trying to manipulate the election results for their favored candidate. That is what politics is all about. But the tool which FOX is using to accomplish this is SPEECH and there is no FEC restriction on the amount of speech an organization or individual can employ, or deny, to achieve their political goals. FOX doing what they do is no different from you standing on a street corner, waving a street sign and talking to passersby about Ron Paul. The only difference is that FOX has a larger audience than you do and that is what bugs you. You think that you should have the right to co-opt their audience and expose them to your views. You don't! The same way Huckabees Army does not have the right to come here and demand that RonPaulForums.com dedicate equal time to discussion of Mike Huckabee. Is that so hard to understand? Fox has no duty or obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide equal time to candidates or act in the "public interest". They are not a public service. They are not a government agency. They are not even a broadcast network for Christ sakes, but a cable channel. You might as well sue The Food Network for making people fat, Nick at Night for rerunning boring 60s sitcoms or the Daily Show for reporting fake news. While you're at it be sure and sue the WWE because that wrestling is not real!

The final nail in your coffin is the ridiculous assertion that media exposure translates into real dollars. This is an unfortunate side-effect of the adoption of propaganda from grassroots programs like the Blimp and Tea Party. Media exposure does not equal dollars. Media exposure is similar to dollars in that both can be employed to raise a candidate's profile and communicate his message to the public. They are interchangeable in their usage but they are not the same thing. Apples do not equal oranges just because both can be eaten.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-06-2008, 11:35 PM
You guys who propose legal action against Fox are an embarrassment to the Ron Paul campaign, the free market and the 1st amendment.

Nope. I'm not going to spend much time or money on such an endeavor.

However, free markets don't work well when you allow participants to lie to each other, and then defend that as their freedom of speech somehow. That's bullshit. I say that as an economist, and I say that as a person. These media companies are pretending to be impartial journalists, when it's obvious that they're not.

Paul said "They're propagandists for this war" and it was reported noplace. Wonder why? Because there isn't a single large media organization who wants to defend their position as journalists. If there were one who did, that statement would have been newsworthy. The silence was deafening.

In the market for news, we have liars claiming that they're reporting journalists. You can't have honest mutually beneficial transactions with people (free markets) and defend lies from one party in that transaction.


OF COURSE FOX IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE ELECTION RESULTS! Everybody is trying to manipulate the election results for their favored candidate. That is what politics is all about. But the tool which FOX is using to accomplish this is SPEECH and there is no FEC restriction on the amount of speech an organization or individual can employ, or deny, to achieve their political goals.

Let me put down the proverbial bong you're worried about real quick, and I'll try to make my point again.

I got a friend down the street that lies a lot. I tell others in the neighborhood that he lies a lot. That doesn't make it ok when he lies to cheat somebody. He's still a liar. He still cheated somebody by misrepresenting something. Is that your free market at work?

Maybe it's cool with you since you know they're liars. Ok. Sometimes I'm smart enough to not get cheated. That doesn't make it ok with me for other people to be cheated.

Proemio
01-07-2008, 12:01 AM
... FOX doing what they do is no different from you standing on a street corner, waving a street sign and talking to passersby about Ron Paul. The only difference is that FOX has a larger audience than you do and that is what bugs you. ...

I'm sure that every supporter will now consult their broadcast license before doing "the same thing as FOX" by "standing on a street corner, waving a street sign and talking to passersby about Ron Paul." and on and on... unbelievable.

I realise that theJudge gave FOX a "license to lie", but this is just fruity...

Electrostatic
01-07-2008, 12:34 AM
You guys who propose legal action against Fox are an embarrassment to the Ron Paul campaign...

The problem is that this is NOT an "obscure loophole". It is the same God Damned Unconstitutional Law sponsored by Johnny Boy McCain in 2002.

It is the same clause from that law that prevents us from "legally" coordinating with the campaign. Grass Roots organizations have to follow that God Damned Unconstitutional BS, but Fox does not...

So, If we were to pay to start a cable channel and use it to support Ron Paul, we would be put in prison... Immediately. But Fox can support Mitt Romney in an hour long special even after his own political party has disavowed the program as being an honest debate.

Do you see how that puts us at a disadvantage, in a rather bad way?

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/engrossed_house.pdf , Page 37



(c) REGULATIONS BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COM-
2MISSION.—The Federal Election Commission shall pro-
3mulgate new regulations on coordinated communications
4 paid for by persons other than candidates, authorized
5 committees of candidates, and party committees. The reg-
6ulations shall not require agreement or formal collabora-
7tion to establish coordination. In addition to any subject
8 determined by the Commission, the regulations shall
9 address—
10 (A) payments for the republication of campaign
11 materials;
12 (B) payments for the use of a common vendor;
13 (C) payments for communications directed or
14 made by persons who previously served as an em-
15ployee of a candidate or a political party; and
16 (D) payments for communications made by a
17 person after substantial discussion about the com-
18munication with a candidate or a political party.

driller80545
01-07-2008, 12:43 AM
RP said one time that in order for a society to be free, they must be moral and ethical!

BeFranklin
01-07-2008, 12:45 AM
The problem is that this is NOT an "obscure loophole". It is the same God Damned Unconstitutional Law sponsored by Johnny Boy McCain in 2002.

It is the same clause from that law that prevents us from "legally" coordinating with the campaign. Grass Roots organizations have to follow that God Damned Unconstitutional BS, but Fox does not...

So, If we were to pay to start a cable channel and use it to support Ron Paul, we would be put in prison... Immediately. But Fox can support Mitt Romney in an hour long special even after his own political party has disavowed the program as being an honest debate.

Do you see how that puts us at a disadvantage, in a rather bad way?

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/engrossed_house.pdf , Page 37

Contact Brad Smith, the ex-FEC chairman that the blimp team hired, and see if we can do something.

~River~
01-07-2008, 02:03 AM
In 1997, Fox-owned station WTVT in Tampa, Florida, fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report Fox to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that Fox had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. Fox successfully appealed against judgment on the grounds that its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected it from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law.

Taken from Wikipedia

BeFranklin
01-07-2008, 02:20 AM
In 1997, Fox-owned station WTVT in Tampa, Florida, fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report Fox to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that Fox had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. Fox successfully appealed against judgment on the grounds that its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected it from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law.

Taken from Wikipedia

Boy that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Its FEC and FCC.

~River~
01-07-2008, 02:57 AM
Boy that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Its FEC and FCC.

did you even read what it said? it has everyhting to do with what your talking about, it's a similar case of distorting news and what happened. :confused:

ceakins
01-07-2008, 05:42 AM
You guys who propose legal action against Fox are an embarrassment to the Ron Paul campaign, the free market and the 1st amendment. Not only that you have absolutely no conception of how the law works and to hear you theorize about possible legal loopholes is hilarious! Seriously, are you a bunch of college kids sitting in a dorm, smoking a bong, and coming up with these ideas? If that is the case just say so. I'll understand then and I'll feel foolish for taking you so seriously. But if you tell me that you are a group of mature, educated adults and you actually believe the crap that is coming out of your mouth I'm gonna go dunk my head in the toilet water for 5 minutes and prey that when I come up for air this has all been a bad dream.

OF COURSE FOX IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE ELECTION RESULTS! Everybody is trying to manipulate the election results for their favored candidate. That is what politics is all about. But the tool which FOX is using to accomplish this is SPEECH and there is no FEC restriction on the amount of speech an organization or individual can employ, or deny, to achieve their political goals. FOX doing what they do is no different from you standing on a street corner, waving a street sign and talking to passersby about Ron Paul. The only difference is that FOX has a larger audience than you do and that is what bugs you. You think that you should have the right to co-opt their audience and expose them to your views. You don't! The same way Huckabees Army does not have the right to come here and demand that RonPaulForums.com dedicate equal time to discussion of Mike Huckabee. Is that so hard to understand? Fox has no duty or obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide equal time to candidates or act in the "public interest". They are not a public service. They are not a government agency. They are not even a broadcast network for Christ sakes, but a cable channel. You might as well sue The Food Network for making people fat, Nick at Night for rerunning boring 60s sitcoms or the Daily Show for reporting fake news. While you're at it be sure and sue the WWE because that wrestling is not real!

The final nail in your coffin is the ridiculous assertion that media exposure translates into real dollars. This is an unfortunate side-effect of the adoption of propaganda from grassroots programs like the Blimp and Tea Party. Media exposure does not equal dollars. Media exposure is similar to dollars in that both can be employed to raise a candidate's profile and communicate his message to the public. They are interchangeable in their usage but they are not the same thing. Apples do not equal oranges just because both can be eaten.


Look a Romney supporter.

ceakins
01-07-2008, 05:43 AM
So if the FCC can't do anything, does that mean I can start transmitting a signal towards the satelites that fox news uses on the same frequency?