11–20 of 83 posts
Use publicly owned airwaves, expect to have to abide by the campaign finance rules. Can't just donate excellent coverage to just one candidate.
I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.
It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. Republicanism doesnt work for anyone but the wealthy, it will do everything in its power here.
Use publicly owned airwaves, expect to have to abide by the campaign finance rules. Can't just donate excellent coverage to just one candidate.
This is how a country slides into oligarchy. Quiet threats, regulatory scrutiny, tax audits, license reviews aimed at TV networks and newspapers until they decide it’s safer to stay quiet. And once the media falls in line, you have to ask what else is being forced into compliance behind closed doors, long before the public realizes what’s happening. What's next? Protesters swept up under sweeping surveillance and det…
This is how a country slides into oligarchy. Quiet threats, regulatory scrutiny, tax audits, license reviews aimed at TV networks and newspapers until they decide it’s safer to stay quiet. And once the media falls in line, you have to ask what else is being forced into compliance behind closed doors, long before the public realizes what’s happening. What's next? Protesters swept up under sweeping surveillance and det…
This is how a country slides into oligarchy. Quiet threats, regulatory scrutiny, tax audits, license reviews aimed at TV networks and newspapers until they decide it’s safer to stay quiet. And once the media falls in line, you have to ask what else is being forced into compliance behind closed doors, long before the public realizes what’s happening. What's next? Protesters swept up under sweeping surveillance and det…
You copy pasted this comment[0] then when I clicked reply it was slightly edited. What exactly are you doing? 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47050245
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You copy pasted this comment[0] then when I clicked reply it was slightly edited. What exactly are you doing? 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47050245
based on this users comments in a similar story from earlier, this seems like a bot.
This is higly abusive. Talks shows have been generally considered exempt from the Equal Time provision since the Regan administration. It it was applied consistently Fox News is basically violating it 24 hours a day.
Fox News is doesn't use airwaves, so it's not subject to this requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reference? This says it now does (and parent is right): https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-sho... To me, this seems reasonable, since I could imagine all the networks skirting the intent in any way possible.
This notice was published as a flagrant act of unlawful retaliation against late night shows for criticizing the sitting President. I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action, even if the Trump regime might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement. As the only non-regime FCC commissioner remaining has pointed out, the FCC specifically did not engage in the actual rulemaking pro…
Legitimate or not, the policy is what's there now, until challenged. You agree with that:
> might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement
And, clearly, so do their lawyers.