The Name "Fox News" Is a Form of False Advertising

I decided to follow through with what I've saying on social media about the very name Fox "News" being a form of false advertising, and I filed this formal report/complaint to the Federal Trade Commission) which investigates instances of False Advertising: 

The Fox News Channel ubiquitously advertises itself as Fox "News". But since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Fox has broadcast Russian propaganda about the war, not just news. On March 18, 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Russia Today (a Russian TV network): 'If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative point of view" about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.' Americans who are seeking the news are being victimized by False Advertising every time they see or hear the name Fox News. A more truthful name for this cable channel would be ?Fox Russian Propaganda".

Why Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed

I think it's time to mention again why net neutrality should be repealed, and for that matter, the FCC should be put out of business. Both are violations of the First Amendment and its proscriptions on government regulation of media ("Congress shall make no law").

I've been making this point for a few years, already, but it never has had more relevance than in this day and age, with someone in the White House who would love carte blanche control over all media.

How much more evidence of the danger of government controlled media do we need?  Trump almost daily rants about how real media such as CNN are purveyors of "fake news," which, in Trump-speak, amounts to anything he finds unwelcome.  He just this week moved to prevent the merger of Time Warner and AT&T, unless Time Warner divested itself of CNN, which could well put the pioneering all-news cable network out of business, or at least hinder its operation.

The notion that if net neutrality is abolished, all of us will be prevented from reading and writing and watching what we want online is not true, anyway.  Everyone was doing just fine before net neutrality was adopted by the FCC just a few years ago, under Barack Obama's urging.  That was in June 2015.  Were any of deleterious consequences of no net neutrality - individuals or small companies being locked out of the Internet, or crippled by glacially slow service - in effect then?   They weren't, and that's because the anti-trust laws - collusion of huge corporations to the detriment of individuals - were in full effect, then, administered by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission, not unconstitutional like the FCC), and the FTC will continue to do that job if net neutrality is eliminated.

But even if net neutrality were desirable, the price we would pay by weakening the First Amendment would be far too high.  Our freedom of expression, and thereby our freedom, has never been under greater attack.  Now is the time to get keep governmental regulation as far away as possible from our essential media lifelines.   We shouldn't let the fact that Trump wants to do away with net neutrality blind us to the fact that such an action would be a good way of limiting his attempts to punish media not to his liking.

FTC Wrong to Regulate Deceitful Bloggers

This is the second post in my continuing series, What's Newer Than New New Media, which examines developments in the world of blogging, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc - what I call "new new media" - since the publication of New New Media in September 2009.


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced yesterday that, starting December 1, 2009, bloggers could be held liable - to the tune of up to $11,000 in fines - for not disclosing that they were paid to write favorably about a product or service. As the FTC put it, "bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."

This has been brewing for some time. I address it extensively in New New Media, published in early September. The issues and possible consequences bear repeating.

First, I think that a blogger or anyone who fails to disclose a paid endorsement - who gives the impression that he or she likes or approves of something, when in fact the main motivation for the blog or whatever statement is payment from the purveyor of the product or service - is behaving unethically. Such non-disclosures are lies of omission, pure and sample, and deceitful practices warrant being publicly called out.

But they do not warrant a Federal or any governmental fine, which is quite another matter.

To begin with, such lies of omission are not the kinds of false assertions which are already prohibited by the FTC. Claiming that a car gives you 25-miles-per-gallon when in fact the best it can do is 15 is a bald-faced lie of commission. Such black-and-white falsities bear little resemblance to paid-for appreciations of products that masquerade as genuine endorsements. The first kinds of lies can pump false statistics into the public realm. The second kind is likely to do no more damage than making consumers feel good about a product, which would only happen if the consumers already had confidence in the blogger. As word of the blogger's deceit spread, such confidence in the blogger would shrink - without the need for government fines.

More important, government regulation of any communication, especially backed by hefty fines, is in danger of contradicting the First Amendment insistence that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Clearly, blogging - even for undisclosed payment for endorsements - is a form of press. And where would such regulation end? Are reviewers of movies, rock concerts, even books, obliged to disclose that they were given free tickets or copies of the book under review? Is a rave review undermined when it flows from media content provided gratis? Should our major publications and broadcast media be fined for such non-disclosures?

If you would say no - as I certainly would - then you must consider why bloggers should bear this burden. Is not the FTC beating up on a new new medium, most of whose practitioners lack the legal clout - as in in-house attorneys - to stand up to the government on this issue?

In view of these serious concerns, I would say the best policy is criticize and condemn deceitful bloggers - but don't let the government fine them.





See also:

What's Newer Than New New Media, Post 1, about Amazon, 1984, and the Kindle

What's Newer Than New New Media, Post 3, Taliban on YouTube: A New Entry in the Dark Side of New New Media