***NEW -FOX-NEWS**** commercial "And then there were two!"
Submitted by Time4Change2008 on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 20:22
"Two democrats and two republicans!"
"Hillary Obama , Obama Hilary!"
"Mccain Huckabee , Huckabee Mccain!"
"
FOX NEWS! Yout #1 sorce for Fair and Balanced presidential 08' Coverage
"
Yep They just ran this bullshit on Tv!
I also seen it the other day but its one of there newest 1's...
Man I feel so bad about Ron Paul, He is getting treated just like Ralph Nader@!!!
»
Exactly what broadcast license is Fox News operating under?
Fox News is a cable channel--not a broadcast channel; it is not licensed by anyone, let alone the FCC. What license terms are they breaking when they are not even licensed? Cable tv stations are not licensed. You could start an All-Ron channel and if you could convince cable companies to carry you, you'd be within your rights to show nothing but Ron Paul 24/7.
However, slappy is right. There is no FCC rule requiring cable channels to do anything with regards to politics. Section 315 does not apply, and it only marginally applies to broadcast TV.
The reason is that news coverage of bona fide news events is exempt from 315. The only thing required of broadcast channels is that they show all candidates equally for non-bona-fide news events. So, if the channel wanted to interview a candidate just to let the candidate talk about their positions, then all candidates need to be allowed to do so.
But, if the channel is covering a race and McCain got 50% and Huck got 45%, that is news, and they need not mention that Paul got 5% because they do not consider that 5% newsworthy. They can invite McCain and Huck on to talk about their vote totals, and there is no need for equal time, because they are covering a bona fide news event (election returns).
Yes, I agree it sucks that RP gets no airtime. But there is literally nothing the FCC can or should do about it.
But what do I know. I've only been in broadcasting for about 17 years, including a number of years being directly responsible for FCC reports and making sure we followed all the laws.
All this talk of a RICO suit against Fox or whomever is not going to get us anywhere.
And lest I be called a troll, I'm a delegate to our state convention next month and personally talked about five other people into running for and becoming delegates. I've shipped RP stuff all over the country to help out in this effort. I've made tons of cold calls to GOP voters. I've sat in the RP HQ volunteering. I also happen to know broadcast regulations and that the rules that are being bandied about here are being misinterpreted.
RP2012!
Where are you slappy? have you finished your assignment yet?
I am waiting for your incoherent response and flawed logic. Where you equate a single persons right to say what they want that can only reach a person who may be within earshot to a media outlet able to reach millions. And also, just because we receive our signals through a cable doesn't negate the fact that the media outlets are beholden to the rules of the FCC. LOL, if that were the case, as you say it is, and since it is cable, they should be able to swear, show nudity, porn, etc,etc correct? I mean, it is cable right? LOL. hoo boy, you certainly are entertaining.
Warmest Regards
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Cable TV channels are not covered by Broadcast TV rules
It's a fact. There are rules about BROADCAST (over the air) TV that do not apply to cable TV. The difference comes in PUBLIC AIRWAVES (which are scarce, limited) and private cable systems, which are not.
Just watch cable and look at how much swearing, sex, and other non-broadcastable content is available on CABLE channels. The rules do not apply the same way as they do to UHF and VHF channels.
Cable channels are not LICENSED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, as over-the-air channels are. The reason for this is that over the air channels use public airwaves, which are a limited resources, licensed for the good of the public, which means anything the public likes, essentially (sadly, that is how it has been interpreted since the Clinton de-regulation of broadcasting).
However, cable TV does not use public airwaves, it does not use a scarce resource, it uses a cable that can deliver hundreds of channels, and which is run and owned by private companies (e.g. Time Warner owns the piece of coax that is buried and runs into your TV set, so they can put on that cable pretty much anything they want--there are some minimal rules, such as local access TV and must-carry laws; but the airwaves that freely float around in the sky and bombard our bodies and which we receive with a big piece of metal sticking in the air, such as an aerial antenna or rabbit ears, those airwaves are public and in order to be licensed to use public airwaves, those stations must meet more criteria (obscenity laws, children's programming rules, public interest rules, etc.)
I've been in broadcasting for almost 2 decades, so I do know something about that which I am saying.
RP2012!
Individual can't get naked in public
Try to get naked in public or have sex in public...
You can argue whether it's a GOOD or bad constitution, but it's undoubtedly OUR constitutiton.
LOL, looks like slappy got a game miscounduct, he's gone
Open mouth insert foot please mr slappy. We're all waiting.
Warmest Regards
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Class action suit
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/2008/01/29/ron_paul_2008_...
if you can get involved get involved in this. It's time to stop dicking around !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop the NWO....It's just illumi..Naughty !
Thanks!
Great idea, but it seems to me we need a coordinated
effort HQ has not provided. Without it, these individual
initiatives are going to wear us out, demoralize some,
and provide further opportunities for our enemies to
twist the facts of even the most noble works, such as this.
In the end not much will get done timely... IMHO
Somehow we need a better way of setting the agenda
for 500,000 patriots to take this thing to the next level!!
Thanks!
Great idea, but it seems to me we need a coordinated
effort HQ has not provided. Without it, these individual
initiatives are going to wear us out, demoralize some,
and provide further opportunities for our enemies to
twist the facts of even the most noble works, such as this.
In the end not much will get done timely... IMHO
Somehow we need a better way of setting the agenda
for 500,000 patriots to take this thing to the next level!!
I feel like HQ has been
I feel like HQ has been working against us for some time... There was an early post warning of this possibility.
Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until t
What is necessary to file a
What is necessary to file a class action lawsuit (not only to get attention, but to be effective).
A claim, and a constitutional amendment
We'd have to amend the constitution to get rid of the First Amendment. That can be done by Congress and two thirds of state legislatures, or by popular vote in two thirds of states.
what is going on here?
Get rid of the first amendment? That's the right to free speech! Are you guys smoking something?
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
For all class action or just
For all class action or just that of which is directed at a news organization?
For one based on what Fox says on-air
Class action lawsuits can be filed -- you need a lawyer, a representative plaintiff (one person who suffered) and a way to describe the class.
The problem is that you also need a CLAIM -- a theory as to how you can recover damages (money) or get an injunction (bar the other side from doing something). The claim has to be recognized by the law.
The First Amendment protects political advocacy, even that practiced by media outlets. Daily Paul can officially support Paul and Fox can officially support Huckabee.
I Have a Claim, I Love Slapshot!!!
crackers4paul
.
"He is getting treated just like Ralph Nader@!!!"
Worse.
Out of hand and off subject.
As a member of a Ron Paul forum I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion pertaining to the original thread.
Yeah man, this topic is getting out of controll In a.....
GOOD WAY!
Im going to try and find that video on you tube.
AMERICAN NEEDS!
Ron Paul!
AMERICAN NEEDS!
Ron Paul!
Where are all the lawyers
They ought to be crawling all over this. RICO lawsuit or simply fraud.
RICO requires breaking some other law
RICO is a conspiracy to break some OTHER law.
What other law is being broken? There is none that the First Amendment doesn't protect.
The FIRST AMENDMENT protects the rights of Ron Paul supporters to hand out Slim Jims and yell "Huckabee is a liar" all day long. But that same FIRST AMENDMENT protects the right of Fox to promote whatever candidate Fox wants to promote. It goes both ways. Daily Paul doesn't have to promote Huckabee, and Fox doesn't have to promote Paul.
Here ya go bonehead, lol Section 315 you be the judge!
Now what was that you said again? Read it and weep fucknuts!
I do love having you around to slap the shit out of now and then, when it pleases me to do so, lil slappy boy. Ha ha ha ha
"that same FIRST AMENDMENT protects the right of Fox to promote whatever candidate Fox wants to promote. It goes both ways. Daily Paul doesn't have to promote Huckabee, and Fox doesn't have to promote Paul".
Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station 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 broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
(b) CHARGES
(1) IN GENERAL. – The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed –
(A) subject to paragraph (2), during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and
(B) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.
(2) CONTENT OF BROADCASTS –
(A) IN GENERAL. – In the case of a candidate for Federal office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate under paragraph (1)(A) for the use of any broadcasting station unless the candidate provides written certification to the broadcast station that the candidate (and any authorized committee of the candidate) shall not make any direct reference to another candidate for the same office, in any broadcast using the rights and conditions of access under this Act, unless such reference meets the requirements of subparagraphs (C) or (D).
(B) LIMITATIONS ON CHARGES. – If a candidate for Federal office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate under paragraph (1)(A) for such broadcast or any other broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
(C) TELEVISION BROADCASTS. – A candidate meets the requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds –
(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the candidate; and
(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the broadcast and that the candidate’s authorized committee paid for the broadcast.
Warmest Regards
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Look a little deeper
Look up the history of that law. It makes exactly ONE apperaance:
I hadn't realized, but it's ALREADY been held unconstitutional.
lol you truly are a baffoon
Daily Paul is not a proper comparison with an FCC licensed and regulated entity, so, horribly inaccurate analogy. There are regulations that all major networks have to comply with regardless of weather they are private or public corporations. Who do the airwaves over the United States belong to Mr. slappy?
OOOh yeah, I remember now the public trust, the people of the United States. We merely loan them out to the private corporations and they pay a fee for that use along with mandated regulations that include equal time during presidential campaigns, among other things. Are you seriously implying that Fox or Cnn could publicly announce their support for a candidate, and then use this enormous media outlet to subvert or promote a particular candidate? Legally?
Please tell everyone you were joking, i like having you around and I want people to read your comedic posts in the future. But if you try slipping this nonsense by everyone here they will never take you semi serious again.
LOL, you are funny though I must admit.
Warmest Regards
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Yes
You asked:
The answer is yes. Sorry. It's what the First Amendment requires. If we bought advertising time on Fox then we could run pro-Paul ads. If we bought Fox then we could run pro-Paul programming.
Plus, this whole business about airwaves and public trust is somewhat irrelevant in the cable era. Foxnews comes over a cable, not over the air. There's no public trust in a cable. Or imagine if the government could say "since you're protesting for Ron Paul on the sidewalk that's held in public trust, you must also give equal time to Huckabee."
What you're really reaching for here is the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. The government can't give something away (spectrum) on the condition that a fundamental right (free speech) be lessened in exchange.
The First Amendment means that we can promote Ron Paul through as many means as we want, as loud as we want, and as vigorously as we want. But it also protects the rights of others to promote their candidates equally hard.
It's not always comfortable -- I'd much rather that Ron Paul be on Fox News every night -- but it's what the Constitution demands.
No slappy my boy you're wrong again...
You see we are talking about a Licensee who has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the FCC by applying for the license. So anyone who submits to their jurisdiction must play by the rules that are set by that entity. They can avoid these rules by not applying for the license but then they will never be able to use OUR public airways. Get the picture yet?
Every network is licensed, therefore here is one particular little rule that they have to follow section 315. SEE ABOVE POST OH SLAPITY ONE.
Warmest Regards
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Doctrine of unconstitutional conditions
The government can't say "if you want to walk on our sidewalk, you can only protest in favor of the government."
Look up the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions.
Sue Fox News for False Advertising
I can think of no better way to spend campaign money. We'll get millions in free publicity, even if the suit is thrown out.
Let's get Tannim and slapshot to weigh in on this
From what I've read they both seem to have sharp legal minds (albeit almost always on the opposite sides). At what point are these people crossing the line and legal recourse is justified (if ever)?
Slapshot ???
He is an Idiot!! Look at his posts, he is a Troll!
You've got to be kidding
You've got to be kidding about Slapshot, right? He's a complete troll!
And disinfo agent to boot. Go read his BS on the "Gold at 900" thread and see what I mean.