Group Wants Fox News Philly Broadcast License Yanked For Airing Election Propaganda
from the inaction-isn't-a-solution dept
When it comes to Fox News’ democracy-soiling propaganda, there’s not a whole lot the federal government has been able to do. The First Amendment generally protects the network’s ability to spew race-baiting conspiratorial bile, and the nation’s top media regulator, the FCC, generally either lacks the authority or backbone to stop the “news” channel from filling American heads with pebbles and pudding.
The Fairness Doctrine — the long-dead law requiring a semblance of even-handed news coverage — is frequently trotted out by the well intentioned but misinformed as a quick fix. But that law only applied to broadcasts over public airwaves, not cable news. Even if you could restore a similar law (which would never happen under our corrupt Congress anyway), it would inevitably be abused by those with wealth and power to target criticism of, you know, those with wealth and power.
So one activist group this month tried something a little different. Fox owns 29 TV stations in 14 of the top 15 TV markets, and its license in one of those markets, FOX 29 Philadelphia (WTXF-TV), is up for renewal. Technically the Communications Act requires requires license holders face a character assessment to hold and maintain control over such licenses, though it’s historically been… decorative or reserved to applicants who commit multiple, obvious felonies.
The volunteer-run Media and Democracy Project (MAD) has filed a complaint with the FCC, arguing that Fox’s continued “election fraud” propaganda violates the law, and therefore should result in the company losing its license to operate in Philadelphia:
If the long-established law behind the FCC character clause has any validity, it must be enforced against Fox Broadcasting where internal documents from the cable news side of the corporation shows that profit comes before truth or the national interest.
Based solely on the facts and the law, Fox does not deserve a license to own a broadcast station.
If the FCC grants license renewals to a station owner that has knowingly and repeatedly reported false news shown to incite violent insurrection against the government, there is no longer any standard of character required by law.
The effort is creative, but isn’t likely to succeed (mostly because the feckless FCC won’t want to touch such a political hot potato). Given it only applies to an affiliate, even the “best case” scenario of Fox losing a license to broadcast in Philly wouldn’t imperil its broader ability to function in any meaningful way. While clearly mostly a public awareness campaign, some folks were rather mixed about MAD’s plan.
Christopher Terry, A Communications Professor at The University Of Minnesota, for example, wasn’t gentle in his criticism:


Terry’s point is that we should instead mandate a la carte cable options (letting you buy individual channels), undermining the billions Fox receives from consumers who technically pay for Fox News (but don’t watch it) due to fat channel bundles. But efforts to mandate a la carte in any legal or regulatory way routinely go nowhere thanks to captured regulators and corrupt lawmakers (recall the idea even received short-lived policy support by the late John McCain). The argument has generally been that streaming is slowly killing the traditional channel bundle model anyway.
Other telecom and media industry experts, like Public Knowledge’s Harold Feld, argued that the FCC could technically take action here. And while he doubted the FCC would actually do so, he felt that the effort still had some utility from an activism and media campaign standpoint:

Then you have folks like Ted Cruz, who insisted what MAD was proposing was an extreme example of the censorial, “Orwellian” left’s effort to unfairly censor Conservative’s speech (like, you know, implying that institutional racism doesn’t exist, or routinely lying about election fraud to agitate a gullible base):

Authoritarians want to frame absolutely any effort to rein in propaganda as itself “Orwellian” suppression of speech. They routinely piggyback on legitimate First Amendment concerns to scare folks away from doing anything whatsoever. They’ve been immensely successful at it, and 1A folks aren’t always keyed into how their legit concerns get weaponized by bad actors.
Granted you do have to ask the question: if the Biden FCC were to pull the license of a Fox News affiliate, what stops a Republican-controlled FCC from pulling the license of a local news affiliate doing real journalism that challenges Republican orthodoxy (not that there’s many of those left)?
But we genuinely do have a problem in dire need of a solution here. Right wing billionaires have spent 45 years building a massive propaganda apparatus across AM radio, local pink slime newspapers, cable news, and now the internet. And, if you haven’t noticed, the authoritarian architects of that apparatus are now clearly taking aim at the very pillars of democracy in increasingly unsubtle ways.
The solution is complicated and certainly not singular. But any kind of coherent, unified, intelligent response to the information warfare right wing billionaires like Rupert Murdoch have been waging for decades has proven hard to come by.
We could take a tougher stance on media consolidation. But the FCC has increasingly become pathetic and useless on issues related to consumer protection, media consolidation, and corporate power. It’s run by the kind of feckless careerists that won’t want to wade into the sort of political firestorms that could threaten future employment opportunities and think tag gigs, even when it can act.
For example the Trump administration mindlessly stripped away media consolidation limits built on the back of decades of bipartisan agreements in 2017. Since the Biden FCC has come to office you’ve not heard a single solitary chirp by agency leaders about how that could be considered problematic for the public interest or the health of diverse media markets, much less any thoughts of restoration.
We could try to implement the kind of education reforms taking root in Finland to help young Americans more easily recognize propaganda. But efforts on this front, when they do appear in the U.S., are usually short lived; again thanks to propaganda-wielding authoritarians who see improved media literacy as a direct threat to the alternate-reality they’ve carefully cultivated.
We could meaningfully (and even publicly) fund independent media as a counterbalance to misinformation and propaganda. But again here, the authoritarian right sees this as an ideological threat. So while data pretty clearly suggests that countries with publicly-funded journalism see healthier democracies, that too challenges the alternate reality bubble authoritarians are building.
We could put our faith in the courts, but while many suggested that the $787 million settlement between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems would cause the station to course correct, that simply hasn’t been the case. All Fox needs to do to avoid similar problems is simply include specific corporation and individual names less frequently in their base-befuddling conspiracy theories.
We could shore up and boost funding into U.S. mental health care to help exploitable Americans more inclined to believe in conspiratorial thinking, but, well, that’s clearly not happening anytime soon.
We could target Fox’s ad income. But while groups like CheckMyAds have had some decent success in naming and shaming Fox advertisers, it’s hard to claim that the right wing billionaires and outrage economy backing this propaganda engine is in any way struggling for cash after decades of such activism.
In an environment when the conversations generally focus on what’s not possible and the end result is no action whatsoever, I’m less inclined to be bothered when groups like MAD try something creative, even (and maybe especially) if success is unlikely. At least it builds public awareness that there’s a problem, and generates a conversation about what we might try instead.
There’s no singular fix for the right wing propaganda machine. It likely requires tougher media consolidation standards, improved mental health care, increased funding for quality journalism, improved media criticism education, and a wide variety of creative campaigns both targeting the underlying financial engine–and building public awareness to what the Rupert Murdochs of the world are doing.
Right now, we’re not really doing any of that in any sort of unified way. In part because the right has frightened everyone into worrying that any action could make things worse. It’s not really clear how broken the propaganda-polluted U.S. information economy, journalism, and democracy itself has to get before an intelligent, solution-oriented consensus on what to do about it actually forms.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, broadcast license, disinfirmation, fcc, independent journalism, media consolidation, media literacy, misinformation, philadelphia, propaganda, rupert murdoch
Companies: fox news, media and democracy project


Comments on “Group Wants Fox News Philly Broadcast License Yanked For Airing Election Propaganda”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
www.mywawavisit.com
Each participant in the programme will respond to a series of questions on the program’s overall quality, customer happiness, store cleanliness, availability of items, and staff friendliness.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Given that the same people caterwauling about misinformation insist that men can be women, are you really sure that you want the government to be able to silence lies? Especially given that the remnants of publicly funded media like NPR are unabashedly far-left in everything they say?
Re:
Oh, it’s Hyman.
Unfortunately, while the Nazi has a fucking point (no we don’t want to government to control speech and free expression, just look at China, Russia, and India for starters), it’s drowned out by him insisting that there’s a commie power bloc.
I have yet to see a commie power bloc anywhere in the world today.
Oh, and NPR is more likely to host disinfo because of how it’s funded, ie, largely through corporate funding.
Meaning? Rupert fucking Murdoch has more of a direct effect on what NPR reports than the government. And not just through the money.
Re: Re:
Funnily enough, it is called SCO. Admittedly, it is not per se a “commie” power bloc but more an anti-First-World one. It’s more like “anything but the U.S. and their vassals” than communist (but then calling China “communist” is an insult to Marx), but it would certainly do for McCarthyism.
Re: Re:
Hi!
What commie power block? Public radio and television got most of their government financing taken away by Republicans. Florida is trying to censor universities.
The reason we want freedom from government censorship isn’t just that censorship is wrong (which it is), but that governments change, and if you give the government such power, it is as likely to be used against you as for you.
Re: Re: Re:
…Precisely.
The SCO is pretty much China pretending that it isn’t a pro-Xi organization and while it MAY work for the sort of white power cancer that the Republicans and their backers want to shove down the world’s throats, it isn’t Communism.
And yes to the other thing too, but I am, sadly, replying to a known harasser who keeps spitting the damn Republican bylines without so much as a thought, despite being banned from thsoe same places.
Re:
Hello “Hyman” or whoever they say you are.
On behalf of the caterwauling lefties (haha), I’d like to state that if you do not have direct experience knowing and living with a person with actual gender dysphoria, keep your snark to yourself. The sh*t is real. I also dislike the whole pronoun argument thing, so don’t think all lefties are SJWs on that topic. I couldn’t care less about pronouns.
As for NPR being “far-left,” do you even know what that means? Far-left calls for the abolishment of private property, the takeover of the means of production by the state, and a state controlled planned economy where prices are not subject to market forces.
Where in the world do get the notion that NPR or anyone else who listens to it has any interest in this??
As a left-leaning voter, I am staunchly capitalist, pro-business, but mindful of the needs of my community through taxation and the development of the common good (education, public space, health care, etc.). I have no problem with guns with the exception of maniacal obsession with assault weapons. And y’all call me a Communist! Pffft!
Will you please cut the crap!?
Now then…
The issue here is NOT as simplistic as whether the government is silencing lies. The issue here is about the misuse of the public airways for knowingly misleading their audience to believe information that is contrary to democracy. It is a legitimate basis for rescinding the license to broadcast. There are plenty of ways in which a broadcaster can broadcast lies – but who cares whether anyone says there are Martians living among us or that the da Vinci Code means anything consequential? That’s not what we are talking about.
When a broadcaster knowingly and deliberately promotes misinformation over several years that undermines the perceived integrity of the most important feature of our democracy, that is a threat to democracy itself. I consider that a legitimate case for arguing against the privilege to broadcast according to FCC rules.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Of course gender dysphoria is real, just as are many other mental illnesses. But just as we do not affirm that announce will get fast from one bite of food, or that schizophrenics are hearing real external voices, or that paranoiacs are having their brains monitored by the government, we should not affirm that anyone can ever be other than the sex of their body.
The acceptance of the teams delusion as reality, especially by the woke medical and psychiatric organizations, means that people with gender dysphoria will be affirmed in their delusions rather than being treated to try to be comfortable in the only body they will ever have.
“Far left” has changed. To be far left now is to support unfettered immigration of people who will become a permanent underclass, to support the destruction of family structures, to allow crime to run rampant, to ignore statistics on who is committing crime, to allow crazed stinking drug-addled bums to occupy cities, to demand reparations, to ignore the failures of public schools, and on and on.
“The public airways” is a fig leaf for government censorship. The only thing the government should do with the public airways is to hold auctions or lotteries for who gets to use them. It should never base licensing decisions on content.
Re: Re: Re:
“anorexics”
Re:
Are you sure that you can always tell the difference?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes. When the winner of a beauty pageant is distinctly uglier than the runner-up, it’s because the winner is a man and the judges were trying too hard.
Not to mention, being good at disguise doesn’t change what a person is.
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, but you only knew she was trans because the article says so, so your assessment of her beauty is colored by that given fact.
We need a “Trans Woman or Supermodel” quiz a la “Hobo or Physics Professor”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I only know that he’s a man because, oddly enough, I don’t typically follow what’s going on with beauty pageants in the Netherlands, and this only came to my attention because the result was publicized because he’s a man.
I hope you understand that every time something like this happens, where a man is clearly usurping the place of a woman, it just drives another nail into the coffin of rejecting the trans delusion. For example, here is another case fresh off the presses where a man has won a women’s bicycle race, and niw the eligibility policy is going to be changed: https://www.newsweek.com/cycling-race-defines-women-athletes-after-transgender-cyclist-wins-1811977
Re: Re: Re:3
So would you be comfortable if someone of similar appearance and dressed as a woman entered a mans rest room? (Note their sex is not specified, as is normal when you meet strangers).
Re: Re: Re:4
Even (real) women sometimes use men’s restrooms when the women’s restrooms are too crowded. I don’t care one way or another for myself, but if the man is sufficiently disguised as a woman, he might have to identify himself to men who do care.
Re: Re: Re:5
And get beaten up or killed for doing so by the bigots who do care. Your ways result in trans people having to dress and act as their sex in public, which is as cruel as conversion therapy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
It is the responsibility of the owners and managers of public restrooms to make sure they are safe for their users.
Trans people are the sex of their bodies, so they are obliged to use the single-sex facilities that match their bodies, because people have religious, social, and cultural taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts.
Re: Re: Re:7
lmao fuck off Hyman
Re: Re: Re:
Herman you can come out of the closet anytime.
Re: Re: Re:2
If we have to drag Hywoman out of the closet kicking and screaming, we can and we will.
He’s spent too long posing a threat to the rest of us.
Re: Re: Re:
This is actually part of the reason why such hatred is a problem. There are numerous instances of cis women, actually born and bred according to your own bigotry, who are attacked because they don’t meet some arbitrary standard, be that in beauty contests or sports.
In former times, people would maybe have discussed whether Marilyn Monroe, Grace Jones or Brigitte Nielsen were the better looking women, but now you’d just accuse the latter two of being trans.
Yes, I do hope people see how ugly you are no matter which mask you wear.
Re: Re: Re:2
And now they’re also being attacked for not looking like “enough of a woman” when they try to use a public restroom. All these attempts to police who can use what public restroom are, in both intent and effect, Ugly Laws—even if there is no actual law backing this bullshit policing of all women’s bodies.
Re: Re: Re:3
It is the woke gender ideologues who are gaslighting women who don’t meet their standards of femininity into calling themselves non-binary or genderqueer. Feminists spent decades trying to teach people that neither men not women were required to behave according to gender stereotypes, only to have that be destroyed by the misogynist women-usurping trans-deluded activists.
Re: Re: Re:4
lmao fuck off Hyman
Re: Re:
“Hyman” wants to look at other people’s pee pees, just to be absolutely sure.
Re: Re: Re:
Nah, he wants to gas anyone who isn’t toeing the party line.
Which, hilariously, would also include himself. Because his line of thinking ends up using race as a means of determining who toes the party line, and he’s admitted that he’s at least of Polish descent. And probably a Jew, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, it is telling how woke gender ideologues use “woman” as an insult. Woke gender ideology is misogynist to its core. It has the dual purposes of tricking women to hate themselves and their bodies so that they think that being a woman is wrong, and then to usurp the positions of women and replace them with men delusionally claiming to be women.
Re: Re: Re:2
Jesus fucking Christ.
We didn’t need to know you were a fucking misogynist too.
Re: Re: Re:2
Obsessive compulsive behavior is a form of mental illness, and you have in spades with respect to transsexuals.
Re:
“Far left” are those of who want to cave your skull. Milquetoast liberals are the compromise.
Re: Re:
Sorry, meant “those of us who want to cave your skull.”
Re:
Please stop feeding the troll. Flag them, collapse all replies, and move on.
Re: Re:
Nah. They need to start understanding just how much those milquetoast liberals they decry as “far left” are actually doing to keep their heads on their shoulders. I’m done letting right wing delusions sit unchecked.
Re: Re: Re:
They don’t care. They just want to derail comment threads. This is how we get comment sections that are 200+ posts long with almost all of said comments nested in the replies to some jackass while the discussion of substance consists of maybe 5 posts with a single reply each outside of that mess.
Re: Re: Re:2
If nothing else, they won’t be able to say they weren’t warned if they get their wish.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It was great seeing the video of the trans-deluded protester wrestled to the ground and hauled away by the Philadelphia police at the Moms4Liberty conference. It’s always fun when the left proclaims that their side is justified in using violence but forget that they than have to win, and that there are plenty of people ready to be violent back, including the forces of law and order.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hey Herman how many times you jerk off to it?
Re: Re: Re:2
Y’all been violent this whole time.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well, how should we deal with someone who, despite repeated warnings, polite and otherwise, FROM THE SITE OWNER to behave or leave, does neither, and abuses anonymous posting to spread his damn lies and disinformation, in a place he is clearly not welcome in?
Especially when said asshole has gleefully implied he’d like to commit violence upon minorities?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Violence should be directed against criminals who, during the commission of their crimes, refuse to stop what they are doing and allow themselves to be arrested. As happened to the trans-deluded protester, wrestled to the ground and taken away by the Philadelphia police outside the Moms4Liberty conference.
Unfortunately, it is Black people who gleefully commit violence on other Black people, as we have seen over and over again these past couple of weeks. Incident after incident of Black gunmen firing into crowds and at random people with callously complete disregard for human life. And as always, when Black people (who are not police officers) commit these shootings and murders, there are no protests by BLM, no outrage by the liberal media except for the usual calls to ban guns.
Similarly, there is no outrage in the liberal media when it’s reported that 23 Baltimore schools have 0 students testing at grade level proficiency for math, and another 20 schools have only 1 or 2 students each testing proficient.
Liberals keep telling themselves that this willful blindness to social dysfunction is helping Black people. That passing them through graduation when they know nothing will improve their lives. That keeping the criminals in their communities or of jail and in the neighborhood will be good for the people they pretty upon.
Wokeness is poison not just because it is false, but because it destroys the lives of the very people the woke are claiming to help. It’s not the people who are able to flee the slums who are being hurt. It’s not the normal people who know they are the sex of their bodies who are being hurt.
Re: Re: Re:5
…hallucinated nobpdy mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re:
There’s always 2 problems with online forums. One is that there’s usually many more lurkers than commenters. Allowing an idiot to spread fiction without a response might fool lurkers into thinking they have a point. Whereas a reasoned response backed with facts might indicate how wrong they are, even if the commenter knows they won’t change the troll’s point.
The other is that it can be just as fun to smack down idiots as it is for morons to pretend to be stupid. If they’re not able to monetise the idiocy (as I assume it’s not possible to do with anonymous comments), then why not do so?
Re: Re: Re:
Of course both of those are my reasons too. False ideology should not go unchallenged lest lurkers be misled into thinking that there are no challenges, and such challenges are fun to execute.
Re:
lmao fuck off Hyman
Re:
Hey numbnuts did you ever manage to figure out how to say your super popular opinion without publicly embarrassing yourself, yet again?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
People can only ever be the sex of their bodies, and should not be allowed to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, nor have false beliefs about gender be taught as truth in public schools, nor force people to affirm these false beliefs.
Black people commit crimes at far higher rates than their share of the population, and people who purport to believe that Black lives matter are invariably silent when Black lives are taken by other Black people.
Illegal aliens should be deported.
Any actor may play any role.
Any artist may produce art on any subject.
Gods do not exist.
Forced-birth enslaves women. Abortion without apology and on demand, including for sex selection and for the avoidance of birth defects.
Criminals guilty of severe crimes should be swiftly executed. Repeat offenders not eligible for execution should be imprisoned for life. During the commission of a crime, criminals who refuse to stop and allow themselves to be arrested should be met with up to deadly force.
Re: Re: Re:
I am whatever fuck the gender I say I am, when I want, and not because some stupid ass cis straight white scum called me so.
You need to walk off a cliff.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Unfortunately for you but fortunately for everyone else, reality does not care what you want or what you think or how much you rage. You are only ever going to be the sex of your body.
Re: Re: Re:3
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
“Preventing speech I don’t like is noble and good. Everyone who doesn’t want to stop it is evil, or corrupt, and/or feckless.“
I truly never thought that I would see a Techdirt piece that so blatantly insulted the principle of free speech in America.
Bode has always been a far-left firehose, paranoid and closed-minded (much like the most rabid Trump-wingers), but covers his beat in an informed if conspiracy-tinged manner.
This piece is unworthy of Techdirt. Techdirt has excellent coverage of the issues in its self-defined remit and even though excessively bombastic (with increasing frequency) has been a benefit to its readers. Masnick should be embarrassed at publishing this awful diatribe against free speech.
This is not the way!
Re:
When ideas that seem so blatantly false and/or discredited are persistently believed by a large enough chunk of the country as to influence the course of politics and even pose a threat to democracy itself, completely impervious to the facts of the matter, it’s easy to see why many on the left might have soured on free speech when the premise on which it rests – that people can and do rationally sort out competing claims to the truth and the best course of action – seems to be increasingly clearly and demonstrably false.
Re:
Criticizing Fox News’s speech is free speech in practice. Telling people that boycotting Fox News advertisers—or at least asking those advertisers to reconsider their business with Fox News—as a means of attacking Fox News’s bottom line is also free speech in practice. Tell me when I’m telling lies.
Re:
You still haven’t.
Re:
You do realise that the principle is that the government can’t restrict your speech, right? That people saying things you don’t like is an exercise of their free speech, and private businesses failing because they can’t compete is not a violation of either free speech or the first amendment?
What you and you ilk are asking for is speech without consequences, which has not only never existed, but would require actual suppression of free speech to enforce.
I’d argue that the “what stops a Republican-controlled FCC” in the subsequent paragraph is one of those “GOP scaring folks away” things. We can’t let the GOP scare us away from using our options. We didn’t let a prospective Republican-controlled FCC stop us from voting to regulate telecoms under Title II with Net Neutrality.
“If we do X, they’ll flip it around on us if/when they get power” isn’t a good reason to do nothing. They do whatever they want regardless.
Anyone believing the garbage coming from Fux news wants to believe it. They want outrage and controversy and could care less that most of it is made up.
Gasoline for the fire...
Maybe we can get courts broaden the applicability of commercial speech? I mean there’s already evidence that Fox News promotes conspiracy theories as marketing to keep their target audience hooked, not because they actually believe them.
Re: Kayfabe
I wouldn’t go that far.
Pro wrestling could be regulated out of existence with that same ruling.
One way the modal pro wrestling fan is comparatively smarter to the modal Fox viewer is that the pro wrestling fan understands kayfabe.
Re: Re:
Given the way pro wrestling operates, I’d consider that a plus.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fox News is less biased than CNN or MSNBC by a mile
And pretending otherwise is just you being part of the propaganda machine.
Re:
Ah yes, the useful fools of Putin, Xi and totalitarians everywhere, whose boss once said he LOVED the Total Information Control of authcap states and has been noted, very publicly, to have let election DISINFORMATION slide despite knowing it was DISINFORMATION to keep fleecing jackboots like you.
Truly a bastion of investigative and fearless journalism.
Re:
… which in your mind, somehow “explains” the fact observed in multiple studies, that those who get their “news” from Fox News, turn out to be — objectively — more poorly informed and more misinformed, than those who actually ignore the news all together?
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re simply delusional.
Re:
Elmo know your name yet bro?
Re:
…Hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
So, how do you deal with people who watch none of those things, but are still more informed than you?
I mean, you’re obviously lying, but “both sides” doesn’t work when there’s actually more than two sides.
Smart thinking (not)
“Authoritarians want to frame absolutely any effort to rein in propaganda as itself “Orwellian” suppression of speech”
Seems to me that “reining in propaganda” is the excuse that authoritarians typically use to … ya know … do authoritarian things.
But the writer of this article is mad that the government doesn’t have the power to do it.
“The Right Wing is a danger, so let’s make it really easy for them to suppress dissent (in the name of ‘reining in propaganda’) when they next have the ability to do so (which, on a federal level, could be in 1.5 years).”
Smart thinking there.
How about instead undoing Pai’s corrupt crony deals approving Sinclair owning more media share than they’re legally allowed to?
1A
That’s it. Freedom of speech
I’m all for per channel cable. Though karl is quite incorrect about revenue based on ratings.
that would kill mandatory carry as well. Ending cable users subsidising broadcast.