I agree completely. In fact, writing Michael Copps at the FCC now is a very good idea. He is acting Director and his commitment to the public good is beyond question.

You can fire off a quick email here:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/mail.html

Or

File a comment here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/

They have a matter on their docket called:

Cable and Satellite subscriber options, e.g. a la carte channels - Docket 04-207

Which is somewhat related,

or send a real mail here:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Thanks Thera, this is a very important topic. Big business should be held accountable for turning our 4th estate into a cesspool.

To make up for the dreary topic on a nice holiday, for lovely music, go here:

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2009/05/midnight-jukebox_09.html

A wonderful selection!

Why does this phenomenon bring A Clockwork Orange to mind?

Here in the liberal DC area, it is usually C-SPAN droning in the background. But if I go into a retail establishment (e.g., carry out, dry cleaner) and Fox is blasting, I usually leave, but not before telling the person at the counter that I find it insulting to be exposed to media porn against my will.

How long before it is illegal to turn off a TV? Actually, it probably already is, since it belongs to the establishment. (The actual, not metaphorical one.)

Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. TV-Begone could provoke a test case.

I hate TV in the grocery or hospital; it's a blathering idiot in the corner, unresponsive to the real world, clearly insane. But it doesn't end there, we now have active billboards lighting up the highway, and I expect ads on clouds any day. Now that companies get free advertising on shoes and shirts (don't just do it), we have to get tattoos to get paid for the service we provide.

Adding insult to injury is the utter lack of awareness of aspect ratio, so we are tortured by talking heads that are squashed, stretched to outlandish bloat by the unavoidable widescreen flat panels. It's enough to make one stay home and not shop, oh wait, that's already happening.

Hi TheraP,

I am doing some research on all of this. Did you notice that today in 'lockstep' Newt, John McCain, and Emporer Cheney were on the talk shows...transmitting 'their' message... they are trying to control perception. They have been doing it for some time and become quite masterful at it.

One things I am reading about is mind control. If you google Karl Rove and mind control you'll be suprised what you find. The reference has been constantly... as Dickday pointed out to me yesterday... since Nixon. I even found a website that claims to have a device that will block out Fox News on your cable.

I am curious if you polled all of the people who willingly or less willingly watch Fox News whether they would agree that it is a 'christian' news station.

Propaganda and 'controlling perception' are apparently what the rebuplicans have used to rule in our country. They try not to 'budge' on message so that people hear it over and over again. People don't realize what is happening to them.

I am also curious to the degree that people trust what they hear based on 'faith' or a perception that their religious views are shared... when they are actually being exploited for that.

There is so much here that I can't write a blog until I do more research but there's no doubt in my mind that Dick Cheney is out their like Blagojevich trying to 'inform' public perception to lessen as much as possible public support for the investigation or prosecution on torture.

Today Cheney said that the president 'authorized' these techniques... sounded a bit like Condi's argument... Somehow I just don't believe that Mr. Dick was 'just following orders' and I know that does not excuse him from breaking the law and not upholding our laws as vice president.

Only one little teeny tiny inconsequential comment, aheam.

It's MS Deanie Mills. ;-D

Here's what worked for one email friend:

I was in my barber's chair yesterday and asked him to get Fox News off his big HD tv screen, which he did with alacrity. He asked what I would prefer and I said MSNBC. He changed it and after my cut said, "That's a good channel. I'll have to watch it."

People are ignorant.

And the greatest force of nature is inertia.

Give it a shove!

I was contacted by someone from this site

when I posted my blog about rebranding Fox

check it out!

FoxNewsBoycott.com

Perhaps the most insidious propaganda ploy Fox has made is to corner the market on so much sports broadcasting. This gives them incessant access to what they see as their core audience- working people who relax and socialize in bars to watch sports after work . Even if it's not a news show, that banner at the bottom continuously displays their talking points. It's borderline subliminal indoctrination, except that it's right out there to see. I assumed that this was widely observed by progressives, but perhaps not. It scares the hell out of me.

Fox is NEVER on in my house and I leave any business or anywhere else it is on. No exceptions. This makes people nervous and uncomfortable. It also makes them think a little. Which is more than what they were doing watching FOX.

As for the ubiquitous part. Some serious money is being spent trying to revive the republican brand. Madison Avenue has to be rolling in dough from the marketing dollars being poured into this. They are very good at what they do and know that a lot of people won't even see the scam coming. The corporate media behemoths are in their corner as well. Just like with Wall Street their target is our pocketbooks. Everything else is just misidrection.

Just in case you missed this:

Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping Video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/fox-news-assailed-for-vid_n_196719.html

More music from the MadPriest, Soul Music:

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2009/05/dviant-disco-soul-on-sunday-special.html

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. — Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)

Some months ago while looking at what the Fairness Doctrine was, an issue related to yours, TheraP, I bookmarked this 2005 article by Steve Rendall.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
A good historical perspective covering both radio and television.

The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 by the FCC. Twice Congress has sought to bring it back in one form or another. Twice it was vetoed, first by Reagan, then by GHW Bush.

This next bit is some quick updating I just did...

Michael Copps, the acting Chairman of the FCC, has said he does not support resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, preferring to concentrate on diversity in broadcasting by promoting more stations be owned and operated by minorities and women. President Obama has also stated that he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine. That's not good enough for Republicans, though. They want legislation that will "guarantee the doctrine would not be imposed"

In the current Congress, some members have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), to block reinstatement of the Doctrine.

Some of the problem with all of hoo haa over Fox Noise, is that the Fox News cable channel is a separate entity from Fox, the broadcast channel, although both are umbrellaed under the same corp. Same goes for MSNBC and NBC and others. Cable channels are regulated differently from broadcast channels. That's why we can watch the Playboy channel on cable or satellite all day long if we pay for it, but Janet Jackson can't show her ta-ta at the Superbowl (or where ever). The parent broadcast company had to pay a fine for that oops.

I do understand though, the point being made that Fox News is misidentifying itself as 'news' when it is in fact entertainment. Where are the journalistic credentials of the 'news' anchors.....oh, wait, they're NOT called news anchors, are they? They're called 'hosts'.

And, I do understand the concern over being inundated by the blather in public spaces. I have yet to run across a waiting room television that could not have the channel changed, though.

Apologies for the length.

I feel the same way. Especially when I deliver a document to a business on the 30th floor of a swanky building--and I see fox on all the televisions. I feel like I've walked into a scene from The Matrix.

Frankly, Stilli, I think a lot was accomplished. I think that some found out that the arguments promoted here didn't amount to much in the way of convincing.

And that, when challenged, many here have no real answers. But they sure love their passive aggressive techniques. Including being "sneaky" with TV jammers and the like. Kind of hypocritical in my book.

Hmmm. I think that CT has a point.

I work the desk at a motel, with a 25" flat screen TV right in front of me. When on, I have it tuned regularly to MSNBC. Especially in the evenings during the weeknights from 6:00 'til 10:00. Guess what I'm watching? I am regularly fascinated by who pays attention and who does not. I have never been asked to change the channel, but if I were I would simply turn it off. Yet, I am not required to do so by any law - because it is private property. Once they rent a room, they are protected by their renter's rights and can watch whatever they please.

I also just spent the night in a hotel that offered FOX, CNN and MCNBC among their in-room channel line up. Didn't notice a TV in the lobby.

I am in coastal NC, the aforementioned hotel was very close to the TN border.

Is Fox making deals with anybody to show their station. eg. airports, hotel chain etc. It would be interesting to know.

I've read through this thread, and I have to say, the idea of the FCC legislating what should or shouldn't be on the TV of a place of business, NOT a public accomodation, is just plain silly to me.

I thought we liked freedom? Some here seem to be asking for the Government to force people to turn off Fox News, or force a cable company to pick up MSNBC.

What Fox is doing seems like free enterprise to me, and I can't stand the crap they show. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Ask to change the channel, or turn it down. Otherwise, you may have to deal with it, it's not your TV, and when you're not in your house, you're not in control of every damn thing.

As for the airport, every airport in the Northeast shows CNN. Why aren't we investigating them too?

Dorn writes:

you're not in control of every damn thing.

Bingo! What we have seen here is vigilante style protest. Ironic because this same group of people were very upset when the other side was doing it.

Moreover, as I noted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up above, CNN, women's programming, local news, etc. are very much often on the screens.

I've yet to see any evidence among the vigilantes here to do real work in understanding how Fox ends up on screens. I pointed out to Stilli how Rush Limbaugh ends up on so many stations but no one picked up that thread.

One of the things that I love about the ACLU most is that they stick to principles -- and despite the liberal base of their donors, they correctly pointed out that freedom of speech ought to be open to Nazis as well in concordance with the law and federal and local regulations.

There is also a woeful lack of understanding of our judicial system by some here. The article cited by Bwakfat (and picked up in sentence style by TheraP) is about a single story from Fox back in 2000. Somehow they want to use this piece of evidence to talk about how Fox can be shown, in a court of law, to be a propaganda machine. That's extraordinarily difficult. Individual news stories can often be brought to court to be shown false, but that doesn't prove anything about the news organizations itself.

As a simple example: did any of the vigilantes stop reading the NY Times when they did their boo-boo about McCain? Sure there was an apology but did that violate your trust in the entire NY Times organization? Well, for people already upset with the NY Times, it was a great talking point as to why the NY Times shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm fully familiar with Fox and have recommended people watch OUTFOXED, but to prove that there is an endemic style to be a propaganda machine in a court of law isn't going to happen. Even children know that all news media are biased (merely by the stories chosen and their order) and unless you found specific collusion between the government and Fox (that Fox was getting tax breaks from the government to push certain stories, etc.) how to you claim that Fox is dispersing propaganda?

There's no law against being stupid and there is no way to regulate what the general person in society is fed (which amounts to government control of the media). I remind everyone here that Air America was a dismal failure. Why? Who knows? Maybe not enough left of center people listen to radio. Maybe it was boring. I know that I listened for about 20 minutes (two 10 minute chunks on two separate weeks) and I found it as tedious as Rush. Maybe it was too expensive - they didn't give away the programming like Rush.

Ever drive through rural America? I often do. Much of the radio (FM also) is loaded with religious programming. What about the Fairness Doctrine there? Because we have Christian programming, we need Jewish programming, Muslim, ... hell (pun intended), we need Satanic programming also!

The only rational way of dealing with this is to allow access to multiple sources and hopefully people will get smart enough to examine and determine what they are being fed and where they should listen. (Noam Chomsky will tell you that NPR is certainly right of center and corporate, so even NPR is not enough for some!) If people don't want to deal with these other sources, fine. Nearly all US homes currently have Internet access, so they have the capability of finding out anything they want.

You can't educate the unwilling. But to regulate what the unwilling are exposed to ultimately undermines my freedom of choice. I want less regulation about content (except to bust monolithic monopolies -- which to a large degree we already have, and well beyond Fox!) and to target one organization and to imply "conspiracy" rather than strong business practices puts the sources of news I currently prefer at risk as well.