Communication is a civil privilege, not a right .... oh yeah.
FCC warns US broadcasters their licenses are a privilege, not a right
America's telecoms regulator has issued a public notice to broadcasters reminding them of their public interest obligations, a move that could be viewed as a veiled threat to toe the Trump administration line on content. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) document, published May 28, points out that federal law requires …
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 16:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Yes it's a privilège
Why do you think that it is a right ? Please explain.
Is it a also a right to drive down the wrong side of the highway ?
Its a privilège because there are limited resources and in order to keep things running correctly for all it is important that there is coherent practices. So tue privelege is given to those that behave and removed from those that dont.
Anarchy never provides anything other than destruction, whereby all parties lose .
-
Friday 29th May 2026 16:44 GMT NoneSuch
Re: Yes it's a privilège
America's Constitution and system of government are being tested as never before.
And from what I can see, they are failing badly on almost all points.
After continually ticking off their allies and cozying up to their enemies, then starting "special military operations" in the Middle East, they are heading to a dark place indeed.
Mine's the one with "The Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire" in the pocket.
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 23:34 GMT Sproggit
Re: Yes it's a privilège
You ask a fair and important question. Important enough that I think it's worth a genuine effort to give you a detailed answer...
1. Why do you think that it is a right? Please explain.
The US Constitution explicitly grants, through the First Amendment, the right to free speech.
2. Is it also a right to drive down the wrong side of the highway?"
I realise that you've picked a provactive counterpoint - and that's OK - but here I think context matters... and the context needs to consider relative harms.
If you drive a vehicle down the wrong side of the highway, you endanger yourself, your passengers and other road users.
By contrast, if you say something that a viewer or listener does not like, or disagrees with, they have the freedom to change stations or switch off entirely.
Therefore, in a practical and probably legal sense there is a distinction we can make between the actions of a third party where you have the total freedom to negate those actions if you so wish, and the actions of a third party that you may have limited or no abilities to influence. If you don't like my radio broadcast, you can change channels. If I drive my 18-wheeler in to your Ford compact in a head-on collision, I'm going to be annoyed at the scratch on the front fender and you're going to be, well, a lot worse off. What I'm trying to say is that the law tries to ensure that the safeguards it provides are proportionate to the risks and to the rights of the constitution.
Also, it's important to note the much more adversarial relationship between citizens and the federal government compared with their city, municipal, local, council or even state governments. Many Americans have much higher levels of trust in their local municipal government than they do in the federal government. That's one of the reasons why it would be so hard to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution.
3. Its a privilege because there are limited resources and in order to keep things running correctly for all it is important that there is coherent practices. So the privilege is given to those that behave and removed from those that don't.
There are quite a few elements to unpack here and I'm not completely confident I will identify them all, or do them justice, but let's give it a go.
First, the limited resources. This was certainly the case back in the early days of broadcast media, when spectrum was limited and any bad management could ruin the medium for all concerned. For example, between the early 1920s and the late 1930s, all broadcast radio operated on the Medium Wave Band. Spectrum was limited and so to avoid crosstalk between stations, a federal agency was set up to ensure that the patchwork-quilt of different broadcasters were laid out nationally in a way that didn't cause interference. Eminently sensible.
Many technological enhancements have happened since that time... The UHF band was opened for television; the transition from Analogue TV broadcasts to digital (DTT, using the DVB-T/DVB-T2 and ATSC Standards) *massively* opened up the available spectrum, allowing for orders of magnitude more broadcast channels within the same frequency spectrum. Happening roughly in parallel, the US in particular saw a huge increase in satellite television coverage, with Direct-Broadcast Satellite (DBS) now making it possible to receive anywhere from 50-300+ individual channels. And of course, there's the cable approach - both the traditional/legacy "CableTV" as well as the more modern and often fibre-based "broadband" cable service.
So that basic premise, the foundation argument that "bandwidth is highly limited and thus we need onerous regulation to ensure this scarce commodity is not wasted" is simply no longer a viable or logical argument. That pretty much pulls the rug out from most of the justification for having an FCC in the first place. [ The glaring exclusion from that, of course, concerns propriety - ensuring that what is broadcast is factually accurate [advertising] and not offensive [violence, nudity, sex, use of drugs, etc]]. But just to underscore this a second time - ALL of those activities of the FCC absolutely MUST be weighed against the 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. It cannot be repeated often enough that the Constitution explicitly mentions Free Speech. The "FCC" doesn't get a single mention. ;o)
Anarchy never provides anything other than destruction, whereby all parties lose.
Now you touch on something that's particularly interesting and [I suspect, but I'm not sure] might actually be unique to the United States. have you heard of "Public-Access Television" or "Public-Access Broadcasting"? It was actually introduced in the United States between 1969 and 1971 - BY THE SAME FCC THAT IS NOW THREATENING BROADCASTERS THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LIKE - and it created the means by which ANY member of the public could create their own television content and have it broadcast. To be fair, this brought about some of the whackiest, craziest broadcast content you could possibly imagine... but it completely and thoroughly disproves your point about "anarchy never provides anything other than destruction". Quite the contrary. Head out in to the mid-west, between the coasts... and you'll find plenty of folk who'll tell you that a "Brewskie Night" involved buying a few crates of beer, inviting your mates round, and sitting down to watch a couple of hours of batsh1t crazy Public Access Broadcasting. You definitely need the beer, though.
I think there are a couple more points that are worth making in conjunction with your comments.
Some of the greatest harms to be inflicted on media in the United States [particularly television] have come since 2016 and have been propagated by a small number of extremely vocal media outlets: Fox News, NewsMax, OAN, but where there is substantial [and not disputed] evidence that the broadcasters have been repeating lies and outright fabrications in a pretty brazen attempt to generate outrage among their audience.
But just to try and stick a pin in that, here's an example of what I mean. In 2018, Fox News host Tucker Carlson described a $150,000 payment made by Donald Trump to Karen McDougal - with whom he had had an extra-marital affair - as "extortion. In reality, that payment was part of a catch-and-kill scheme, operated by Donald Trump and David Pecker of American Media, to squash "bad press" during Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign. McDougal sued Fox, in essence arguing that describing her as an extortionist was slanderous and wrong. The Fox defense was that Carlson's statements were "merely non-literal commentary, rhetorical hyperbole, and "opinion commentary", intended to frame a political debate, rather than actionable statements of objective fact."
The case was dismissed, in essence handing Fox "News" the win.
And therein lies the problem... When Fox on the right wing and MS NOW on the left wing broadcast deeply biased, selectively reported and leading segments as "news", it undermines the trust that can be placed in broadcast news. *That* is something the FCC should be concerned about and should be dealing with.
The fact that Fox, OAN, NewsMax and MSNOW and all the others continue to exist and continue to operate is as informative as a book could be. The differences between the regulation of news in the US and the UK could not be more different.
The challenge with the US regulatory framework - and this has recently been completely overturned by a recent ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, which overturned the 1984 landmark case, "Chevron U.S.A., Inc, v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. That case had made settled law the idea that when it came to interpretation of federal law, government agencies were presumed to be the authority in their respective area of expertise. In June 2024, the Roberts Court issued a landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo that threw that out - and granted the Courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the role of the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of legal meaning.
So now, despite everything that Brendan Carr says about the FCC considering revocation of licenses... the Roberts court would like a word. They basically cut the ground out from under Carr [on paper only - the chances of them disagreeing is extremely remote], since SCotUS basically granted themselves "Imperium" (supreme executive, military and judicial power, from ancient Rome) to do pretty much whatever they want.
Ultimately, I think the elements you raise in your argument do not stand the sniff test against shifts in technology or society, but I concede the effect remains unchanged thanks to the highly partisan nature of governance that the US operates.
Given an choice between the US model and say the UK model, I think it's pretty safe to say that all the evidence points to the idea that the UK model - largely non-partisan - has proven to be the more successful. Of course, that will never be reached in the United States - because while there is a numeric minority [currently in the right-of-centre politics] of voters, they will always argue in favour of a model that allows the minority to win and retain power.
This is why the US currently exists as a criteriarchy [a government or political system led by the judiciary], not a democracy [government led by the people], given the simple facts that:-
1. Appointments to the highest court of the land are intrinsically political
2. The current SCotUS has issued countless brazenly partisan rulings
I don't think that - or the model of broadcasting - is likely to change soon.
-
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 13:08 GMT LogicGate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
"One of the most critical steps towards Gleichschaltung of German society was the introduction of the "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" under Joseph Goebbels in March 1933 and the subsequent steps the Propaganda Ministry took to assume complete control of the press and all means of social communication. This included oversight of newspapers, magazines, films, books, public meetings and ceremonies, foreign press relations, theater, art and music, radio, and television."
Keep in mind that Hitler nerver won a popular vote, and that the rest of the world (including Austria) has sepent the last 80+ years bashing the Germans for their (parent's and grandparent's) choices.
-
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 15:53 GMT DoctorNine
Re: Okay, as long as we're clear that...
And if we are reminding people, I think we should also remind the folks gobbling up spectrum at the telcos for 'more 5G, 6G and on and on' all the time. The public interest isn't served by monopolies, duopolies or even triopolies. This trend has been getting worse over the last couple decades. Goverment decides who the winners will be, then our representatives make bank through illegal insider trading on it. The whole mess is a fetid pile.
-
Friday 29th May 2026 16:31 GMT Someone Else
Re: Okay, as long as we're clear that...
The article (and the FCC) states:
[F]ederal law requires broadcasters to operate in the public interest, [...]
That mealy-mouthed admonition (from a more enlightened time) was specifically added to make sure broadcasters did not become mouthpieces for various political groups (e.g. labor unions, fascist political parties, the Socialist Workers Party, etc.). It's pretty clear to the most jaded observer that such pronouncements from the likes of tRump's FCC mean to define the "public interest" as tRump's interest and wave a thinly veiled threat of license removal if any recalcitrant broadcaster fails to sufficiently equate the two.
Seems to me that the "public interest" is better served by presenting all manner of viewpoints, peppered with a sufficiently wry skewering of extremists of all stripes. But I'm just a boomer who came of age in a different time where the Constitution was not considered a mere inconvenience, so what do I know?
BTW, I was a broadcaster in the Nixon era, and lived through that Crook's attempt at muzzling "the Mejia". That didn't turn out well for Tricky Dick; with any kind of luck, it will not turn out well for the Crybaby-in-Chief either.
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
"more would-be broadcasters than available spectrum licenses"
I don't know about the US but here, it seems the media corporations can't wait to ditch broadcasting via pub(l)ic spectrum. The AM bands (medium and long wave) are largely atmospheric and EMP, and every third announcement on the BBC tells us to go to Sounds or iPlayer. Once everything is coming in over IP, spectrum is going to be a buyers market, apart from the bits usable for mobile devices, and those will become telecom infrastructure.
-
Friday 29th May 2026 15:10 GMT Andy The Hat
Re: "more would-be broadcasters than available spectrum licenses"
The consultancy over continuation of the UK broadcast tv service has just started. People will not realise what value it was until the aerials go quiet and they have to watch a swirly buffery thing followed by "enter your credit card details and Government ID to watch this content". Bye bye channel surfing ...
-
-
-
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 15:00 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Fox News
TBH, it is long past time that Fox was canned or at least sued into oblivion despite the deep pockets of Dear Rupert.
And then do the same with ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and the US would have a free & fair broadcasting landscape, much like Ukraine. Or not, given their government erased competition. But a far-left echo chamber is just as bad as a far-right one, and what's needed is a plurality of news, both left and right. Then it's up to viewers to decide which side might be telling the truth. It's funny the article cites the Trump-Russia meme, which was heavily promoted by Clinton & Co, yet precious little evidence exists to support that allegation. But it demonstrates the power of the media that many Americans (and non-Americans) still believe it's true.
FCC though should just stick to regulating things like minimum amounts of news programming, and even better, the amount of ads per hour, much like Ofcom does in the UK. But that's one of the reasons few people watch US broadcast TV given it's wall-wall ads.
-
-
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 16:39 GMT Someone Else
Trouble is, Faux News, Newsmash, et al are not "broadcasters" per se. They don't use the public airwaves, so they are exempt from the FCC's machinations. Its why I can say "Shit", "Fuck" and "Donnie is a pedophile" on these services and the FCC can't do squat about it (wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments notwithstanding).
And, I can even put all three together in one sentence, if I wanted, and the FCC can take its hammer to the beach about it.
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 00:23 GMT AVR
They're counting on the Democrats either having too much to clean up, or being unwilling to go full fascist with the infrastructure that's been set up here. Then when the wheel turns and the Republicans are in power aagain they can pick up where they left off. I don't believe they're in a position to render elections irrelevant in the current electoral cycle, but they do plan to be there eventually.
-
Friday 29th May 2026 15:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
The subtext is...
bow down and lick Trumps boots or face the axe. Don't dare criticize the dear leader or you will get your pink slip in pretty quick time.
Sod the FCC and go oniine and to hell with them and their outdated views of sucking up to the Emperor with NO Clothes (but diapers galore)
-
Friday 29th May 2026 17:11 GMT azander
SO how can the FCC do anything if they don't have a full "board" ?
Right now the FCC has 3 of 5 members on the board. All 3 are Trump's cronies and he won't fill the other two because they must come from the opposition party. This means he has stacked the deck in a way that doesn't allow an opposing viewpoint. A direct violation of the FCC charter, as passed by Congress. They shouldn't be able to do anything but simple "technical" administration. Break a rule, be able to prove it in a court of law, then you can act/fine/litigate/etc. Without a full board they should not be allowed to do anything that isn't black or white level decision making.
Even technical administration should be left to a lower level at this point since there isn't even an attempt at some balance at the Board level. Talk about in the Oublic interest? How can one side of two very opposing views be covered when everyone on the Board has the same (political) view? That isn't balance that is clearly a political power grab, and is illegal.
-
Friday 29th May 2026 19:53 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: SO how can the FCC do anything if they don't have a full "board" ?
" A direct violation of the FCC charter, as passed by Congress."
With hindsight it is clear that the Framers never imagined that Congress would just go along with being used as a floor wipe, and yet here we are! Perhaps November will bring a fresh approach. Perhaps not.
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 18:10 GMT Jamie Jones
"Nice license you have there. It would be a shame if...."
After what the did to CBS, what they did to Colbert, what they tried to do to Fallon, this is just Trumps politically selected FTC doing more to challenge the first amendment than any government before it.
MAGA's don't mind when it's "the other side" though. They'll moan at organisations for blocking their free speech but are quiet when it's the actual government. Maybe they should read their constitutions amendments sometime.
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 15:09 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: "Nice license you have there. It would be a shame if...."
After what the did to CBS, what they did to Colbert,
Nice conspiracy you've got there. Colbert got fired because he wasn't funny and nobody watched his show, certainly not enough to justify the amount he cost CBS. But now he's free to err.. write a LoTR movie.
-
-
Sunday 31st May 2026 14:57 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: "Nice license you have there. It would be a shame if...."
How about the repeated attacks by the demented orange one on any late night host who shows up his foolishness, his corruption etc?
Assuming you mean Colbert again, who was shouting into the void (literally), and trying to defend his channel's decision to fake news? That cost CBS $16m. Colbert cost CBS a lot more. But nothing wrong with criticising a politician. In many cases, that's deserved, ie questioning Biden's mental capacity. Yet most of the US MSM didn't do that, and instead turned their bile & hate on the 'demented orange one'. Also nothing wrong with the media reporting on Whitewater, Uranium One, payments from Russia or the cost of Obama's Tower of Power in Chicago.
But the US MSM didn't really do any of that, and instead focused on their hatred for one man. Who also has a massive ego, thin skin and a lot of money to hire lawyers to throw sueballs at the MSM when they create fake news.. Which they have, and have helped make Trump richer.
Or there's the general problem with the way TDS has polarised politics and infected the media, even spreading to a tech news site. Which might be a problem for both the media, and news. Never ending barrage of anti-Trump conspiracy theories. Boring. Never ending barrage of woke bollocks. Also boring, to the extent that a doll on a chair got more views than an expensive SF show. Mango & Groku flops, blame the audience. The Odyessy may flop harder. Or Supergirl, but nobody cares. Other than the creators, but they're so out of touch that all they can do is blame the audience for staying away. And like Colbert, blame Trump.
The far-left has turned into a hate machine with nothing positive to say. Which might be a problem, ie the Mayoral campaign in LA isn't looking great for Bass. She got an endorsement from Newsom, which might be a kiss of death given he's not exactly popular.. Which might also be a problem for the mid-terms, and the next US general election. They don't have a candidate, they don't have any policies, their anti-Trump messaging becomes irrelevant. Their constant negative campaigning and hate might just turn off Americans, much the same way as they're turning off the MSM.
-
-
Monday 1st June 2026 12:26 GMT Jamie Jones
Re: "Nice license you have there. It would be a shame if...."
"Nice conspiracy you've got there. Colbert got fired because he wasn't funny and nobody watched his show, certainly not enough to justify the amount he cost CBS."
"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was the highest-rated late-night talk show on American television, holding the number one spot in total viewers for nine consecutive seasons until the show ended in May 2026."
Ok, you got me. You're trolling. No-one could be this detached from reality. Bravo.
-
Monday 1st June 2026 14:02 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: "Nice license you have there. It would be a shame if...."
Ok, you got me. You're trolling. No-one could be this detached from reality. Bravo.
Nope. But the far-left and TDS sufferers are detached from reality, pretty much by definition-
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/colbert-is-latest-casualty-late-night-tvs-fade-out-2025-07-19/
Fifteen years ago, a popular late-night show like “The Tonight Show” could earn $100 million a year, the executive said. Recently, though, “The Late Show” has been losing $40 million a year, said a person briefed on the matter. The show's ad revenue plummeted to $70.2 million last year from $121.1 million in 2018, according to ad tracking firm Guideline. Ratings for Colbert’s show peaked at 3.1 million viewers on average during the 2017-18 season, according to Nielsen data.
For the season that ended in May, the show’s audience averaged 1.9 million.
Turning $70m in ad revenue into a $40m loss is quite a remarkable achievement, especially for a cheap format like a late night talk show. But helped along by Colbert's $20m a year star-sized salary and apparently a staff of 200. Or for another view-
https://www.tvinsider.com/1253494/kimmel-gutfeld-colbert-seth-meyers-ratings-late-night/
The biggest viewership was over on cable, where Fox News’ Gutfeld! once again drew the largest audience, with 3.53 million total viewers and 300,000 demo viewers in the 10 pm slot. However, the show was down 5 percent in both measured categories compared to the week before.
No wonder the left-stream media wants the competition banned..
-
-
-
Friday 29th May 2026 18:15 GMT JLV
Pretty Orwellian all around. Think about it: when your group does it, good speech. When your opponents do it: bad speech.
Next election, Americans really need to put the kibosh on the minority of citizens who believe Kings, Doctor Jesuses, censorship and taxpayer-funded accolades to felons are acceptable interpretations of their own constitution.
It's not just that Democrats need to win in November and in 2028. Longer term, the Republican party need to get its soul back (including on budget deficits!). It's unhealthy to have one party rule because the opposition can't be trusted to run a dogpound competently.
-
Friday 29th May 2026 19:52 GMT Someone Else
You want the Republicons to get their soul back1? Institute proportional voting. It has been scientifically2 shown to mute3 the effect of extremists within the body politic.
1 For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume they did at one time have a soul.
2 Well, you know how MAGAts feel about that ol' debbil, science...
3 Mute, but not eliminate completely. Some whackjobs can still leak through, but not as many or as easily.
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 00:19 GMT mjflory
The Republican soul
Yes, the Republican Party did once have a soul. It was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist alternative to the existing parties, in order to halt the spread of slavery to the new western states. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. As a boy growing up in Wisconsin I went on a school trip to visit the tiny schoolhouse in Ripon where the party began. It's sobering to consider how the spirit of the huge party that grew from there has changed so greatly over the years.
-
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 22:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
> It's not just that Democrats need to win in November and in 2028
Or perhaps the US voters could have a collective attack of sanity and get back to the roots of their country's politics: have more than two parties and none of them looking like the shams that call themselves "Democrats" and "Republicans" but have nothing in common with the parties that were first created with those names.
"Brewster's Millions" (1985 version): "None of the above". Sadly won't work in every state, due to the suspiciously convenient laws that disallow write in votes.
-
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 12:15 GMT You aint sin me, roit
What's the endgame?
Is this just a shake-down: "Make a nice donation to the "Trump library" and we can make this all go away"?
Because I can see that failing if ABC remember that you don't get to pay protection money the once, they always come back for more. So what if ABC says "No deal"?
Would the FCC really look to shut down ABC? Surely people would notice - if nothing else that is a lot of broadcast sport. And how long would it take for al the ensuing court cases to unwind before anything actually happens? Trump will be dead before ABC are off the air. The FCC might think they can put fear into the hearts of other broadcasters, "This is what happens if you defy King Trump!", but it doesn't seem realistic.
So is the aim simply to appear to be "Owning the libtards", even if there is no actual impact?
-
Saturday 30th May 2026 20:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Incredible perversion of original intent
Back before the idiots took over (read: Trump 1), the FCC's mandate wasn't content-oriented, it was technologically-oriented. Sure, there were words and pictures that would get you fined (read: slapped on the wrist) and told not to do that anymore, but if it didn't involve public ... er ... pubic displays, outright obscenity, or complete one-sidedness, the FCC would pretty much leave you alone. They concentrated mainly on the technical functions of broadcasting; was your signal interfering with someone else's? Was your coverage area what it should be? Was your hardware properly configured and maintained (especially in terms of aircraft warnings and towers not falling on their neighbors)? Were you identifying yourself and providing the -- admittedly minuscule -- amount of station IDs, public service, and news programming?
Politicizing and weaponizing the proper, conformant use of the public airwaves (and media) is typically, as noted above, one of the earliest steps that dictatorships take in ensuring that any competing messages don't get out to the people at large. It's a shame that we don't understand history well enough to recognize that we're in trouble. But as George Santayana so correctly said:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
"
-
Sunday 31st May 2026 14:28 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Incredible perversion of original intent
Politicizing and weaponizing the proper, conformant use of the public airwaves (and media) is typically, as noted above, one of the earliest steps that dictatorships take in ensuring that any competing messages don't get out to the people at large. It's a shame that we don't understand history well enough to recognize that we're in trouble. But as George Santayana so correctly said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS#Controversies
But picking on CBS. In 2004, they were fined by the FCC for the infamous Jackson nip slip. Also in 2004, CBS broadcast 'fake news' regarding Bush's military service, just ahead of the Bush v Kerry election. Then more recently-
In 2025, some accused CBS of capitulating to the second Donald Trump administration, allegedly in part to gain federal government approval for the Skydance–Paramount merger.
A bit strange that the wikipedians didn't expand on that controversy, but instead-
In April, in response to a lawsuit filed by Trump, 60 Minutes editor Bill Owens resigned, saying "he no longer has control of the show."
Which was odd, given that controversy was the way Owen's show deceptively edited a Harris interview. Strange Wiki doesn't mention that or link to the controversy. But there were also other Trump lawsuits, like winning a settlement from ABC for calling him a convicted rapist, when he isn't. Or ongoing litigation against the dear'ol Bbc for deceptively editing Trump's Jan 6th speech. The Bbc's defence in that one is amusing, given prima facie evidence that they did it, so they're instead relying on nobody watching the Bbc.
But a lot of politicising and weaponising the use of public airwaves, generally in favour of one side of US politics. The View is currently trying to argue that they're not a news show, so should be allowed to be biased and not have to talk to any nasty right-wingers. Or here, where someone calls for Fox News to be banned.
Or, if the left-stream media don't want the FCC to regulate them, they're always free to surrender their broadcast licences and go to cable, satellite or online. Might even save them some money given very few people watched Colbert, The View, or CNN.
-
Thursday 4th June 2026 12:46 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: Incredible perversion of original intent
Or, if the left-stream media don't want the FCC to regulate them, they're always free to surrender their broadcast licences and go to cable, satellite or online. Might even save them some money given very few people watched Colbert, The View, or CNN.
Oh give over you tedious little troll.
Oi - El Reg - please, please implement an ignore feature like other news sites (*cough* Ars Technica) ASAP.
-
-
