Rescinding ABC, CBS, & NBC broadcast licenses on the public's airwaves

Liberty
1

The broadcast licenses and public bandwidth used by these networks for their various stations, and their affiliates, should be rescinded and instead go to patriot media companies, in order to provide fresh voices and a diversity of opinion, which will provide some balance to the rest of the media landscape.

As Harold Feld (a media rights expert quoted by Vice in 2017) said when critiquing President Trump’s concern about NBC (my emphasis):
“We want the government to act as a referee, and to promote media diversity though things like media ownership rules" (see Why Trump Can't Strip NBC's Broadcast Licenses )

Exactly. Vice’s article further notes:

‘There are grounds for the FCC to revoke a station’s license, but the standard for doing so is very high. For example, repeated violations of FCC rules or the commission of serious crimes might be grounds for losing a license. Feld said that it’s theoretically possible to challenge a license-holder for deliberately misinforming viewers in violation of the FCC’s public interest mandate’

Why is this important to be acted on?

Below I refer to multiple cases of all networks deliberately misinforming viewers over many years. And just yesterday, ‘The View’ of ABC, had this to say about how their party should physically fight against President Trump (the inflammatory words used were not disputed by anyone on the panel, nor by ABC management):

Sunny Hostin (from 2.52 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZELjmobgVuY&t=5s):
“It is very clear that Medicare is on the table [for cuts]. It is very clear that Social Security is on the table. It is very clear that people will die. The baby-boomers, the civil-rights generation, they knew what they had to do - they were willing to fight and die for their rights. This generation of Congress, they are NOT meeting the moment [in the way Hostin wants]. This is an existential crisis.”

The free-to-air TV networks are the main source of education for most adults beyond their formal schooling [see note 1] and as such, they should responsibly perform this vitally important role. An educated public is the cornerstone of democracy, as this is the only way to enable voters to make well-informed decisions.

ABC, CBS, & NBC have disqualified themselves from continuing their decades-long privilege to dominate the public’s airwaves, due to their deliberate subversion of democracy, and their extremist hoaxes which incite fear and anger in their followers, and which impact their followers’ mental health, and manipulates them to vote in ways they wouldn’t otherwise.

The networks have subverted democracy by misinforming and inciting the public over many years with various inflammatory hoaxes, and in more recent years with hoaxes about Russia, the Biden laptop, claims of Nazism, & regularly calling President Trump “Hitler”, among dozens of recent hoaxes detailed by John Nolte of ‘Breitbart’ (see note 2).

Further, the commonly accepted rough estimate is that network TV provided 90% positive stories about Harris, and 90% negative stories about President Trump in the lead up to the 2024 election. Over 4 years, for the Democrat cause generally, this would combine to hundreds of billions of dollars of free assistance to just one side of politics.

The networks’ extremist ‘Nazi/Hitler’ hoaxes on President Trump of course have incited several assassination attempts, beginning with Michael Sandford’s attempt on June 18, 2016.

This ongoing incitement of assassinations is the ultimate subversion of democracy, and if the incitements had been finally successful, they could also have resulted in the destruction of the nation.

The networks, in putting their thumbs on the scale of democracy with positive/negative reporting imbalance, were instrumental in creating an incredible 75,017,613 votes for the incompetent and uncharismatic Harris. (Compared to the charismatic and wildly popular Obama’s highest vote tally of 69,498,516).

And in 2020, many Americans answered in the affirmative to the question of whether they would have changed their vote had they been truthfully informed about the media’s Biden laptop/Russia hoax - and they answered yes in such numbers as would have swung that election away from Biden. (see note 3)

Finally, the networks deprive the general public of ever being aware of President Trump’s most important statements and achievements, and in doing so they create an opposition where none would otherwise exist - an opposition that is often feverishly frightened and stressed out, year after year, due to the networks’ propaganda.

(One recent example - President Trump made a public statement on ‘Truth Social’ about Zelenskyy “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” This would be an obvious headline in reports on the issue, whether the network owners agreed that the President’s idea of peace was good or not. But viewers never knew of this statement. All they heard was that Zelenskyy was mistreated and bullied by President Trump.)

It is time to include new corporations in the privilege of educating the public - which will provide balance, fresh voices and more diverse opinions across the media landscape.

8 Likes
2

Notes: 1.What makes news sources or topics trustworthy
‘When asked in this study to name the source they rely on most for the news topics they follow most closely, about a third (31 percent) cite a national TV station/program. About a quarter (24 percent) say a local TV station/program (24 percent). About 1 in 10 name a radio program/station (10 percent); a niche or specialty publication (9 percent); a local, national or international newspaper (7 percent); or an online only news source or blog (7 percent).’

  1. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/01/21/nolte-elons-nazi-salute-marks-first-media-hoax-of-trumps-second-term/
  1. Hunter Biden's laptop: Voters lacked 'critical' information in 2020 election, survey shows | Daily Mail Online
    “…half of respondents said they would have voted differently had they known the Hunter Biden’s laptop revelations were authentic.”
4 Likes
3

Common Questions:

  1. What about free-speech?

Free speech is a right. By contrast, a network’s license to use the public’s airwaves is a rare privilege. A license is not a right for anyone, and licenses are very limited due to limited available bandwidth, among other reasons. And as seen above, it’s a violation of the FCC’s ‘public interest’ requirement for a license-holder to deliberately misinform viewers.

For those concerned about free-speech, it is vital to note that the networks’ preferred candidate for the presidency, Kamala Harris, and their candidate for the vice-presidency Tim Walz, both spoke publicly against the right of free-speech.

See Harris in 2019 calling for the President to have his free speech cancelled, and calling free speech a “privilege” (i.e. not a right) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5__4EVWjV4&t=44s

See Harris again last year calling free speech a “privilege”, which can be taken away - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRo5m4s16aA

See Tim Walz in 2022 saying there’s no guarantee to free speech where “misinformation” is concerned, or where democracy is involved - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxoH1fgEg9A

Further, CBS has just recently come out against free-speech - through their spokesperson Margaret Brennan on the program ‘Face the Nation’, where free speech was criticized for creating the conditions for the Holocaust - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPa7Z2aJ08Y

CBS then revisited the topic of free speech via their ‘60 Minutes’ program, sympathetically covering (and tacitly promoting) the idea in Germany of arresting people for trivial comments online. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc

So to continue to grant the privilege of broadcast licenses to networks who have shown themselves opposed to free speech (via their chosen political candidates and their programming), on the grounds of free speech, not only misunderstands the nature of broadcast licenses, but is counter-productive in the extreme.

Note that with a change of licensees, ABC, CBS, & NBC would continue broadcasting as always - on their websites, cable, on Youtube, elsewhere online, etc. Also the rest of cable TV, & the NYTimes, Wapo etc, would continue to work for Democrat interests as always.

  1. How important is this change?

Those who are misinformed cover all demographics and are the majority of the population. I personally know the people who watch the networks - they are old people, parents with kids, & some young women & men who switch on the morning TV shows before they go to school or work. These millions of viewers are unbelievably ignorant or misinformed about every issue of significance.

Further, TV-induced ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is real, negatively impacting the mental health of millions of Americans, along with extreme mental fear and anger engendered in them over a range of other issues.

This can be seen in recent collections of Tiktok meltdowns (uploaded to Youtube), where people are crying in distress and bellowing in anger over Ukraine/Zelenskyy, and the violence across the world directed at Elon Musk (due to the networks’ promotion of the disinformation that Musk is “unelected” & therefore can have no part working for the administration, etc).

The proposed change is especially vital when the very nation’s existence is opposed by the current TV networks. (See for example the networks’ support of the use of the “black national anthem”, & their support of taking a knee during the real anthem, etc).

ABC, CBS, & NBC are demonstrably extremist organizations, opposed to the founding and existence of the USA as a sovereign nation; they are opposed to free speech, & they are involved in inciting assassinations of Presidents they don’t approve of. There is no reason on Earth that they should be granted unique privileges to misinform and manipulate the public.

  1. What about a backlash from Trump supporters who could potentially miss their favorite TV shows?

Yes it is important to consider that viewers of network TV’s police shows or reality shows, might be irritated if they feel they’re missing out on these. But given that ABC, CBS & NBC will continue their online broadcasting, there is no need for devotees of their programs to miss out.

The important change will be that the networks’ hate-filled misinformation programs will no longer be automatically piped into living-rooms from the morning onwards, when viewers switch on their TVs.

Also it might be possible for the new licensees to buy the rights to popular programs from the relevant production companies in the future. New licensees can also easily mimic the current morning-news shows’ formats, for viewer comfort. Further, experience shows that people quickly accept changes in circumstances, especially where such changes are relatively trivial.

Any controversy will blow over as ordinary busy people become interested in hearing from the new broadcasters many formerly ignored facts about the President, and the world; and Democrat activists can continue watching ABC, CBS & NBC as always, online.

  1. How to sell this change to the public?

The public who switch on free-to-air networks for breakfast TV will only see patriot companies continue the regular format, and most will simply quickly accept the new group of smiling, friendly breakfast-show faces, panel shows, etc. The new companies might also provide such brief explanations (or none) as they deem necessary for the slight change in programming.

Recent history shows that people very quickly accept change - even radical changes to their lives during the Covid era - and a change of TV company, broadcasting in a similar format, is trivial by comparison.

Nonetheless, on social media I believe that if mentioning changes in broadcasters, there should be a focus on words such as ‘fresh voices’ ‘fresh perspectives’ ‘providing diversity of opinion’ ‘diversifying the media landscape’ ‘diversifying free speech’ etc. Also there could be posts pointing out, for example, the fairness angle that “ABC, CBS & NBC have had their turn on free-to-air, now it’s the turn for others”.

4

I did not read all this…

Agree they should have their licenses revoked. They are not news or opinion. They are scripted propaganda.

3 Likes
5

GOVERNMENT FUNDED scripted propaganda

1 Like
6

Herein lies a problem with your logic.

The Federal Regulations limits ownership of the number of stations, although with the current Call for Public Comments, some suspect there may be a push to further relax those regulations even further.

Bottom line, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC do not have a nationwide license, they are content producers that affiliates align themselves with. The affiliates hold the broadcast licenses, and the aforementioned limits say that the owners of the “network” can only own so many affiliates/stations.

Here’s some examples of various owners across markets:

ABC:

Market Call Sign - Channel Owner
Chicago WLS-7 The Walt Disney Company
Dallas WFAA-8 Tegna Media
Kansas City KMBC-9 Hearst Television
Los Angeles KABC-7 The Walt Disney Company
New Orleans WGNO-26 Nexstar Media Group
New York WABC-7 The Walt Disney Company

CBS:

Market Call Sign - Channel Owner
Chicago WBBM-2 Paramount Global
Dallas KTVT-11 Paramount Global
Kansas City KCTV-5 Meredith
Los Angeles KCBS-2 Paramount Global
New Orleans WWL-4 Tegna Media
New York WCBS-2 Paramount Global

FOX:

Market Call Sign - Channel Owner
Chicago WFLD-32 Fox Television Stations
Dallas KDFW-4 Fox Television Stations
Kansas City WDAF-4 Local TV LLC
Los Angeles KTTV-11 Fox Television Stations
New Orleans WVUE-8 Emmis
New York WNYW-5 Fox Television Stations

NBC:

Market Call Sign - Channel Owner
Chicago WMAQ-5 NBC Universal
Dallas KXAS-5 NBC Universal
Kansas City KSHB-41 E. W. Scripps Company
Los Angeles KNBC-4 NBC Universal
New Orleans WDSU-6 Hearst Television
New York WNBC-4 NBC Universal

You can see that the big four do hold ownership in the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are the top 3 respectively), but as you go further down the order (Dallas is #5, Kansas City is #31, New Orleans is #53) the networks don’t take as much of a stake in them (even in #10 Houston, the 4th largest city by population, only two of the four is owned by the parent company of the networks).

So you’re not talking 4 licenses nationwide, but (up to) 4 licenses in each of 210 television markets across the county, a majority that are owned by small to medium sized businesses, and not the conglomerates in New York and Los Angeles.

The problem you state is really based on the news organizations at the national level - Just like the news organizations at CNN and MSNBC - I agree they should be reformed, but how to let the Government interject without violating the First Amendment is a challenge for whomever you think should be writing this law/regulation.

7

This is the blind spot of “free speech”. It’s gone beyond protection of speech that’s disagreeable, two or more differing viewpoints within the same frame or context, to include the protection of Marxist communist propaganda , and LIES, SLANDER, LIABLE, AND OMMISSION of truth and facts.

It seems to me there is a growing demand and need to differentiate between the two. To protect the one, ensure and not violate duty to the public trust, and prosecute and punish the other which violate it.

LIES have become profitable for a tiny few, and extremely costly for everyone else. When it should be extremely costly to that tiny few to LIE, restoring profit of the public trust to everyone else that relies on the public trust.

1 Like
8

Very true, how to reel in those in the media without running afoul of the First Amendment.

After my previous post, I had to give it some thought, and one thing that struck me as a step towards it, and it revolves around a Supreme Court prescient that was decided in 1964.

In The New York Times Company v. Sullivan the SCOTUS decided that there were two standards for defamation and libel, based on if the person is considered a “public figure” or not (there were subsequent cases that expanded the definition of “public figure”, but this case set the standard.

In the case of a “public figure” they have to show that defamation is aimed specifically towards the person and not towards their official position.

If Sullivan were to be overturned, and the higher bar for public figures was eliminated, the burden of proof would be on the defendants to prove that the “lies” that they are allegedly reporting are in fact true.

Imagine if President Trump, Elon Musk, Attorney General Bondi or FBI Director Patel were to go after the big media outlets over a lie reported about them on air. All of a sudden big media is faced with billion-dollar payouts, and likely a high profile retraction and apology campaign (of course after having all their dirty laundry aired in court). Have that happen once or twice and the shareholders (since they are all publicly-traded companies) would demand accountability.

The resulting shake up will improve journalistic standards as everything that goes to air or is printed is fact checked (sometimes multiple times), sources verified and every other “I” dotted and “T” crossed to make sure what the public sees is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

9

That’s interesting.

I remember major network news prior to internet and CNN was biased. Everyone right of center back then KNEW network news was biased. And was probably running cover for Liars, but there was enough impression that if a story was big enough, or obvious enough, they would break it regardless of politics. We all knew they were lefties, but no one wanted to get labeled a yellow journalist. No one wanted to lose their illusion of integrity, their resume reputation, lose audience, market share, their job.

So the right of the country tolerated the biases that oozed out from between the cracks of the facade in order to get some semblance of basic facts.

It seemed like more retraction were issued back then.

Now today, since the invention of the internet, and alternative media, the legacy media aren’t only running cover for Liars, they ARE the Liars. Fully engaged in information psychological warfare. Lies that have consequences, that steer and shape elections. They are advertising big pharma propaganda.

It bothers me that car companies, beer companies, and lots of other companies with right wing customer bases, at best these companies should be neutral, but show no loyalty to their customers by relying solely on msm to advertise, allowing their companies to be corrupted by woke policies, etc. The news has gone from biased, to brazen ultra left propaganda.

It seems to me that the common man ought to be able to sue for damages for their obvious lies, regardless of who they may be slandering, wether or not that person wants to litigate. Since media lies EFFECT the common man, via elections and policy, the common man ought to be able to bring charges and sue for damages based on a set of assumed and real affects to him personally, of those lies.

If the common man can prove in court a perpetrated lie beyond a reasonable doubt, the court sends a summons to the media responsible, they don’t show up. They forfeit a defense. A court or jury is convinced, based on presented evidence, rules in plaintifs favor, and awards damages at a cap of let’s say $25,000. Now it sets a president, anyone can sue and collect damages based on that evidence. This could quickly snowball.

The media is not going to want to ignore a summons. They’re not going to want to payout snowballing damages, they’re not going to want to pay court fines if they don’t. They’re not going to like the contingency of holding liscences riding on wether they paid a fine or judgement, a having to print a retraction.

No existing laws would have to be change pertaining to individuals suing for slander.

Media could still stand to lose millions in those direct cases.

But what I’m talking about is the common man being able to sue for indirect consequences of lies. Even if these judgements were capped at low amounts, but were open to sequential individual suits, class action lawsuits, print retraction, and fines contingent on holding a liscence. A media representative would be motivated to show up and defend each charge. It would be an ongoing financial nuisence for them to defend, and also potentially almost certainly more costly for them to ignore.

The solution? Stop Lying!

10

Oh it was well known that Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and Peter Jennings were all biased, but they were somewhat neutral in their news presentation, not interjecting opinion (unless they clearly disclaimed it was their opinion) into their reporting.

The fact that most of the modern news outlets seemingly mix news and opinion with no distinction has been the downfall of network news since that golden age of Cronkite, Chancellor and Jennings.

In that aforementioned “golden age”, those journalists that sat behind the desk and read the news had large departments of researchers, writers, editors and fact checkers that would make sure that falsehoods rarely (if ever) made it to air.

Now, these outlets will cover any story that fits their editorial agenda, with no fact checking or any of that other research. Add to the fact that everybody’s rushing to get the “scoop” on the other guy, they’ll push it to air (especially on the 24 hour news channels) as fast as they can, facts be damned.

I’m not an attorney, so this can’t be considered legal advice, but for a slander/libel case to go to court, the person bringing the suit would have to show injury caused by that report (what is otherwise known as standing). John Q. Public would have a hard time proving they had standing if they weren’t specifically called out or had a financial impact based on that report (and financial impact would be hard to prove in a majority of these cases).

Now if John Q. Public were to take an action based on a lie, and after taking that action the truth reveals the opposite, then they might have standing to recover losses based on that action, but even then that claim would be a longshot.

So forcing these outlets to report the truth is really up to those citizens that are being called out in the lies to turn the tables back on the media to clean up their messes. In the Information Technology world, there’s an old term “Garbage In, Garbage Out” - the modern media is notorious for it, and once a lie gets out there, they’ll repeat it until the end of time. The only way to fix it is to use the courts to force the media to undo the lie, and correct the record (along with some apologies).

1 Like
11

Jennings, Brokaw, rather, etc. I wouldn’t call the golden age. I’d call it the olden age, or the only age, lol.

You’re not understanding what I’m saying about free speech, the media’s lies, and the liberties they take with freedom to LIE, with an all but acknowledgement of such behavior, with a catch me if you can attitude about it.

You’re looking at it from the current limited means of the law where it’s difficult for the Johnny q. Publics to win damages for lies of the media.

So what we’re really talking about is law changes, or additions to existing laws.

Think of it like this. Regardless of your taxpayer status, if you are a citizen, you have access and rights to public parks. Certainly if you work and have paid taxes you do, because you are a contributor. And as a contributor, you have a stake, and a share in those spaces. Wether you use parks or not, you are a stake holder in them.

As a common working man, who works during the week, with only weekends to use the park. If when you go to the park you find it covered in litter and vandalism, does the litter and vandalism have quantifiable effects? Are these effects only affecting you, or others, or everyone? Or is it only arbitrary, and only your perception? Is it only a matter of preference, your preference that your local park be free of litter and vandalism? Is it a reasonable preference for stakeholders to have parks with litter and vandalism?

Further, is it YOUR job to pick up the litter, fix the vandalism? Who is responsible to clean up and maintain the park? Everyone that has stake in the public park has already paid for it. Does there need to be an additional cost of hired personnel to clean and repair, and maintain the park? Maybe.

But whose responsible for the litter and damages? Should we give that any thought? What if in fact it’s other shareholders that are the litterers and vandals? Should we accept that?

Or is there a common understanding, good faith, and even laws in place that prohibit littering, and vandalism in public places?

You get where I’m going? Do we have public parks? Yes. Do we have rights and access TO these public spaces? Yes. Do we have reasonable expectations that they be clean, free of litter and vandalism? Yes, in fact it is universally the law.

Obviously we prosecute litterers, and vandals, we have laws against such things, and prosecute them as crimes when we catch them.

Are these crimes prosecuted against anyone specific? No. Yet we still prosecute them as crimes. Who is the victim? It’s worth considering.

It is my argument that the news, purveyors of the news effects public spaces. Just like a single individual or group of litterers or vandals effects the many by the crimes they perpetrate on public spaces. Likewise the public trust is a shared space, much like a public park. The public trust is not an exclusive private space for which you must hold additional shares to beyond American citizenship.

If as a stakeholder and shareholder in public parks, you believe you have rights to clean space free of litter and vandalism, I believe this reasonable, and legal expectation can be applied to the public space, the public trust that media influences and reaches.

You don’t have to claim personal damages to prosecute a vandal or litterer.

The lies the media perpetrated have effects, and do damage, create harms, and costs to the public trust. They effect elections, and elections have direct effects on all sorts of things, including public spaces. So even moreso these should be prosecuted as crimes against the public.

We need to consider that we as stakeholders as citizens have rights to clean, unadulterated, unvandalized public trust, just as we have reasonable expectations for parks to be FREE of the same.

And to equate media falsehoods as CRIMES against the public trust, which is WORSE, and has WORSE effects than littering and vandalism. And if we HAVE the legal basis to prosecute the one, WE HAVE the legal basis and precedent to prosecute the other.

So the question is do we have a public trust? Do we have a right TO a public trust? Do we have right to create, establish, maintain, defend, access a public trust? I think the answer is yes, and we already HAVE a public trust. Are we going to allow it to be littered with lies, and be vandalized, and for criminals to get away with their crimes, that effect everyone, to the point where the park, the space, the trust no longer functions? Or are we going to prosecute?

12

Jennings started doing nightly news on ABC in the 1960’s, Brokaw and Rather started in the 70’s and 80’s. In my original list I didn’t include the latter two because that is when the shift started happening and they were beginning to openly show their bias. It was for that reason my examples included Cronkite and Chancellor instead.

Parks are built and maintained with money from the public, be it a city, county, state or Federal level. That means that we as taxpayers have a stake in them.

The news outlets that this thread is discussing are private corporations, all of which hold rights just like common citizens do. They are also protected by the Constitution/Bill of Rights like citizens are.

Keep in mind the law is divided into two parts - criminal and civil. In your park scenario, vandals and litterers are going to face criminal charges by a prosecutor that represents the Government.

The victim in your park scenario is the Government, which is why the Government is bringing the case, and can seek restitution to cover the costs of the damage.

A private citizen could attempt to bring a civil case against the media outlet, but again would face a difficult burden of proof that they were “injured” by the false claims. But, as a private citizen, they bear the burden of paying attorneys to represent them, and also the risk that if they lose they pay the defendants legal fees as well. No matter how you look at it, not many people have that deep of pockets to take that kind of risk, and I doubt you’d find an attorney to take the case “pro bono”.

As far as the Government is concerned, the media outlet has not broken any law, and at the moment I couldn’t think of a law that could be enacted that would punish them that wouldn’t also run afoul of the Constitution.

13

But they operate IN the shared public space, the shared public trust.

In the case of the park, that is a space we all travel to, yet there are RULES and LAWS within that space, many of which apply to the vast area and community OUTSIDE the park.

Don’t you get it?

With regards to the public trust. That is also a SPACE. The place is a physical location defined by the borders of the United states of America. We as citizens LIVE here. The shared public trust “space” of the park is the same concept as the public trust of the United states of America. While criminals violate public parks with litter and vandalism, the media criminals violate the public trust with far more substantial consequences littering and vandalizing the public trust with lies. And just like littering and vandalism in a public park does may not single out an individual such as slander would, the damage done, the violations, crimes harms and adds costs to the greater community at large. It is a crime against every single stakeholder and shareholder in that park. In the case of the public trust, where the reach of media lies extends to the full width and breadth of the public trust, there is no one within that space that the media’s lies do not harm.

That said, How does being a corporation and having the rights and protections of real citizens translate into protections to and rights to commit harms and crimes that damage the public trust?

We all know a corporation is not a real living human being, but for legal purposes we create the legal fiction and strawman and give it rights like a living human. Why can’t we do the same with the public trust, and give it rights as well?

What this boils down to is I am arguing that the American people, the common man and the entire citizenry make up and share the public trust. I am arguing that this American public deserve access to the truth, and deserve a public trust free from lies, especially from corporations that operate within the space of public trust. And should be susceptible to prosecution and punishments of crimes committed in that space that a non corporatized citizen would.

Are you arguing for special protections for corporations that lie within the space of public trust? Or are you advocating that the term public trust remain legally undefined?

14

Oh I get it, you’re trying to compare the modern-day news media to the Town Crier - a person that was employed by the town, or the King to come out and read the official proclamations in the town square.

In the modern world, the closest we have to a Town Crier is a press secretary, making official statements on behalf of Government officials.

Yes, the laws apply to everyone anywhere within the jurisdiction of the Government, not just in the public park that we’ve used as an example, so someone committing vandalism or littering is still subject to the criminal courts, even if it is on private property, but for example, if the private property owner wanted the law enforcement to enforce those laws, they have to request or grant permission for the law enforcement to say, enter a privately owned building - and yes, there are times where law enforcement can enter without permission, but that’s not relevant to this discussion.

Public Trust in the United States refers to “any public property which belongs to the whole of the people.” In Article VI of the Constitution it refers to politicians who achieve power by election.

Our private homes are not public property. If you rent, unless you live in Government run housing, it is private property held by the property owner. Same goes for every office building, factory or other facility in the Country.

They are private businesses, owned by private stockholders (although they are traded on a “public” stock exchange, but even the stock exchanges are privately owned).

In Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, it says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” - a Bill of Attainder is a law passed by Congress that targets a specific party with a crime - essentially bypassing the Courts. Likewise an ex post facto law is passing a law and making it retroactive, so those that broke the law before it took effect can be charged with the crime.

The way to (legally) regulate them is by voting with your feet - turn them off. Just like Coke vs. Pepsi, Budweiser vs. Coors, Burger King vs. McDonalds, you are free to choose. If enough people make that move, then the media will change.

Look at the ratings, Fox News continually runs circles around CNN and MSNBC by several orders of magnitude, and even recently has surpassed ABC, CBS and NBC in a couple of cases. Even Hollywood is starting to shift as the people grow tired of them preaching from their ivory towers.

Even the Democrat party is undergoing an implosion of sorts as they are in desperation mode to be relevant in the current Government, as the Trump administration is exposing their lies, and cutting off their cash cow funding, and doing things they repeatedly promised but never delivered.

15

I don’t think you get it. It feels like I’m trying to explain something to a preprogrammed AI. Are you an AI?. I don’t care if mainstream media are corporations or not. If you make claims in the public square, in the public community space, via magazines, books, radio, television, internet, or any other vehicle designed to reach the masses, outright claims of truth, or facts, or assumptions of such, that later turn out to be LIES, lies that affect elections, or public opinion that effect elections, public opinion or policy, then those lies and omissions should be prosecutable by any citizen regardless of wether the news source is a corporation or not.

The public and public trust ought to have access to the truth, and if not access to the full complete truth such as private or secret matters pertaining to military strategy, and intelligence, etc., then we AT LEAST deserve to NOT be LIED TO, and have to sort through lies and misinformation for the small bits of truth that may or may not be there.

Maybe we need to change the laws to state that any corporation or publication claiming to be a news or press source is open to public trust litigations, otherwise they must be listed as “entertainment”, and cannot make the claim of being a news source.

16

No AI here (and I have a very short trust of AI for writing things such as this, as it likes to write a lot of fiction), just an Information Technology Engineer in his mid-50’s and no college degree. I’ve worked jobs in many industries, including transportation, retail, media, entertainment, banking and law. To put it mildly I know a lot of things, and what I don’t know (or are uncertain) I know how to research.

I don’t watch TV news, with the exception for the occasional opinion/interview show on Fox News. In print media sources, I have some 100+ news sources in an aggregator so I can read the articles from multiple places and make my own decisions.

Everything that have typed in my previous responses was well researched before I clicked send (many of them took 45 minutes or more to research and compose).

None of the modern media outlets (with the exception of maybe PBS and NPR) are funded by the taxpayers, thus they are not “public”. Even the CNN that is played in the waiting areas of major airports does not make them “public” (the airport operations is usually funded by “user fees” paid by the airlines and concession operators, and passed on to the passengers as part of ticket prices) - and CNN pays the airport for the right to put those screens in.

Likewise, we don’t have giant jumbotrons on the courthouse square playing these media outlets in public. When you are watching them, listening to them or reading them, it is on your own device, which you privately own - be it a computer, radio or television. In most cases, you’re inside a private space, if not your home, it may be at a bar or restaurant - all private places.

You do bring up a valid point, if the media outlet unduly influences an election with false information, then they should be subject to investigation - that falls on the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). The FEC is composed of 6 members, 3 Republican and 3 Democrat, and a simple majority (meaning bipartisan) is all it takes to open such an investigation. Unfortunately, that “tie” also means that only the most outrageous acts that the Commission can agree on will get investigated (and they’ve got their hands full with campaign finance violations, etc.). This is why when (pre-Elon) Twitter, Facebook and others suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, the FEC didn’t investigate, and it took a Republican-led Congress (and the Twitter Files) to really expose what happened.

Still, you as an individual would have a hard time proving “standing” - Standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In a majority of the cases you cite, John Q. Public as a plaintiff will not pass the standing test.

As I have stated previously, public trust is not the correct term, nor would it hold up in a court of law.

Truth and Lies can be a matter of opinion. Some people will consider the truth a lie and a lie the truth (look at the “disinformation” that came out in the pandemic).

Again, as I said in my earlier post, there are multiple media outlets, you choose with your feet (or in this case, remote control). Since those media outlets depend on advertising dollars to fund their operations, they will find that a shrinking audience will mean shrinking revenue, forcing them to make a course correction.

Then there’s those who can claim standing, and they can help drive change. Case in point is the current case of “Trump v. Pulitzer”, where the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to the New York Times and Washington Post over their reporting of the (now debunked) Russian Collusion case. Even after both the Times and Post finally retracted the stories, the Pulitzer board refuses to strip the award presented to them. Since the Russian Collusion hoax centered around (and was an attempt to discredit) Donald Trump during the 2016 election, he has standing in this defamation case.

As I mentioned in my previous post, you are essentially creating a “Bill of Attainder”, making one law that targets a specific party, and is prohibited by the Constitution. Likewise, a law opening a news or media outlet to litigation would (1) have a chilling effect on news coverage in general because anything they say could open them to a lawsuit, and (2) run afoul of the First Amendment, where the press is specifically called out.

As we’ve seen in the past even the so called “fact checkers” stretch the truth, and they are supposed to be the watchdogs of the media.

So who’s to judge what is a lie versus what is the truth? Do you really trust the current state of our courts to be unbiased? Even jury pools in many large cities are so biased that getting a fair trial is a challenge.

I’ve now been working on this reply (and you’ll see I’ve included links throughout to my source material from my research) for over an hour just to bring you the facts.

17

I wrote a reply. That triggered a proof read that’s “awaiting approval”. The proof read by an official is not to screen out lies, but wether or not offensive. I as an individual am having my 1st ammendment speech screened and proof read, arguing with another individual, while the msm kills people, and steers the outcome of elections, and LIES with impunity. And while my speech is being screened with absolutely no defense or outrage from you or anyone else, the msm’s lies and crimes are obvious.

Imagine the media having to have their speech pre screened to avoid lawsuit, and loss of liscence. Imagine a 3 strike policy for the media.

I don’t think you can imagine it, lol. You only prescribe a depopularity contest for them.

The absolute irony of this situation.

I who am a nobody am having my speech pre-screened, awaiting approval, while the media with mass reach lies and crimes with impunity.

I think despite all your reading and experience, you may actually be an idiot.

18

Policies for the People is a private website, they have their own moderation policies, and you do not have First Amendment rights here (The First Amendment is specific to Government controlling your speech). I have had no less than three posts on this site flagged for moderation, but I haven’t complained, as I’m mature enough to know that every site has a moderation policy, and we as users may not know exactly what triggers the moderation (and they do that so bad actors can’t just abuse the system staying just under the moderation threshold to spread spam).

Every broadcast network has a “Standards and Practices” department that reviews all content slated for air - every game show, every late night talk show joke, and so on. It used to be that the writers for the network news had to have the news story reviewed before it went to air. There was also a large research department that could fact check any news story as well (there’s a great fictional movie starring Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn in 1957’s “Desk Set” that centers around such a network research department).

The point being, the networks have for the most part always been self-policing. The problem has been as the news has moved towards “near-real-time” reporting, every network doesn’t have the time for their usual research and fact checking - and every one of them is trying to break a news story ahead of the other guy - so the faster they get it loaded in the teleprompter and on air the better - at least in their eyes.

At the same time, the shareholders demand more return on their investment, and departments like Standards and Practices, Research and others have been reduced in size or almost completely eliminated. You’ve also seen so much consolidation in the media and entertainment sector, so there’s less corporations running things.

And that doesn’t include the news reporters that (over standards and practices objections) insert their own opinion and commentary.

I think with a few well-timed libel lawsuits, and the obvious reversal on the aforementioned “The New York Times Company v. Sullivan” you would see the news media take a step back and go back and ramp back up internal review of the content going to air.

I see repeated reports of Democrats that want to abolish the First Amendment, and use that to reign in things like talk radio and other Conservative forums - so it becomes a two-way street (you attack the mainstream news, they counter, and so on). Ultimately it leads to all speech other than Government speech being silenced, and that is completely against what our founding fathers envisioned.

I can imagine that nightmare, and sure wouldn’t want to live in it.

To each their own opinion.

At this point I feel that we are just repeatedly rehashing the same arguments, which has diverged too far away from the Original Poster’s opinions, and thus I see no further need to continue this discussion.

19

Leftist funded!

20

Jewish funded.