-7

I have a question about my Politics Stack Exchange post: Why does the FCC allow Gregg Re to produce Tucker Carlson?

Why is my question off-topic? I want to legitimately know why the FCC can ban something silly like "cunt" from TV shows but do they really not have any rules about who is allowed to produce the top news shows?

I'm not sure if the FCC has rules about that. But it doesn't seem like it since the #1 show (Tucker) has a young producer named Gregg Re with no background in journalism. He has been accused of stealing many stories without credit which is something you learn about in J School.

4
  • "I recommend posting on Meta and asking there politely how/if your question can be made on-topic. You should be aware that this site has an automated question ban, which you will likely trigger if you do keep reposting this. – F1Krazy"
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 7:07
  • In the past 2 days I've had 2 questions closed, then reopened, then closed, after engaging in good faith with this Meta process. It appears that it's many of the high reputation users or spiteful mods who are in bad faith here and not me... disagreeing with the premise of my question should not mean you close the question, it should mean you answer my question with your fact-based response.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 10, 2022 at 8:16
  • For the record, I do not hate Tucker Carlson, I actually think he had some good pieces sometimes. So if you think I'm here to bash him, you're assuming things.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 10, 2022 at 8:19
  • 2
    If you really want a high quality answer on why the government has no authority to do something, you are probably better off asking it on law.SE. You can ask it here as well, but on this particular topic, the quality of the answers is likely to be lower. Also, because of the name of the site, the users here are extra cautious to enforce the rules against political activism. The name may make it seem like that's the topic of the site, but it isn't. So anything which even appears to be political activism will likely not be welcomed unless it has redeeming value of being extra, extra on-topic.
    – wrod
    Jun 13, 2022 at 1:19

4 Answers 4

12

I want to legitimately know why the FCC can ban something silly like "cunt" from TV shows but do they really not have any rules about who is allowed to produce the top news shows?

This seems to me at least to be your underlying question, and has nothing to do with any single named individual. The close reason given on your question is very explicit about this:

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

This website is not meant to be a soapbox, and here your question is easy to interpret as not so much a question but more of the statement "what these people right here are doing ought to be illegal!"

10
  • 9
    A possible rewrite could be "Why does the FCC place no limitations on who can produce news shows?" Or even better "Are there FCC regulations as to who can produce news shows?"
    – xyldke
    Jun 9, 2022 at 8:07
  • 1
    @xyldke and for those, they have probably been asked and answered before, either here or at Law
    – SJuan76
    Jun 9, 2022 at 8:58
  • I hae edited the question exactly as @xyldke suggested, looking forward to the moderators stop blocking it now.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 9:26
  • 6
    @46onstixx Editing the title is not the same as editing the question. The question body needs improvement, too. You still make it all about one guy from one show instead of asking about FCC policy in general.
    – xyldke
    Jun 9, 2022 at 9:42
  • 2
    Updated it again politics.stackexchange.com/questions/73533/…
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 10:54
  • @46onstixx I still don't understand the need for either the first or the last paragraph, or the need to mention any single individual by name. But I'm not a purist so I went ahead and voted to reopen.
    – user5155
    Jun 9, 2022 at 12:15
  • 2
    If you actually want an answer to this question, remove all references to Gregg Re and especially to anything he is accused of. Then I'm pretty sure your question would be reopened. Jun 9, 2022 at 12:45
  • 2
    @DJClayworth I agree with you on the allegations. They add nothing substantial to the question. However, I'd argue that referencing Mr. Re alone is not a problem, as he serves as a useful example to motivate the wider question.
    – xyldke
    Jun 9, 2022 at 13:01
  • 1
    I should also add that in my opinion this is a pretty easy answer. The government doesn't get involved with regulating who can and cannot broadcast "news". Jun 9, 2022 at 14:54
  • I'm honestly surprised you guys voted to allow it, I was starting to think this was not in good faith but I can see that it was, thanks
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 17:16
-2

Tucker Carlson's show is not a news show and that fact has been used to defend the show and network from lawsuits in the past. Because of this there is no reason that the FCC should be deciding who can and can't produce it based on the standard of "news"

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

Talking about expected fact checking in opinion shows

But in the process of saving the Fox star, the network's attorneys raised the journalistic question: Just what level of fact-checking does Fox News expect, or subject its opinion shows to?

How the show is presented

In the Fox case, Carlson was presenting his own narrative, not even one extrapolating from known facts.

6
  • 2
    what in the world are you posting about this is for moderator discussions
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 17:14
  • 1
    @46onstixx The fact is that Tucker Carlson is not considered a news show which means the entire premise of your question is invalid. You are asking what would make the question on topic and you are using an example that isn't even considered a news show.
    – Joe W
    Jun 9, 2022 at 17:31
  • @JoeW The question's been re-opened and you can post that as an answer there now, if you so desire.
    – F1Krazy
    Jun 9, 2022 at 18:08
  • 1
    @F1Krazy I still consider the question off topic and do not want to provide an answer for an off topic question.
    – Joe W
    Jun 9, 2022 at 18:13
  • What you think one word in the title makes the entire question off topic? so your answer on the Meta page should say that probably. most of your contributions are very confusing from what I notice.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 9, 2022 at 20:05
  • 1
    @46onstixx The question is asking about regulating news programing while talking about opinion programing which is why I think it is off topic. If your question was actually focused only on news programing it would be a different matter
    – Joe W
    Jun 9, 2022 at 20:14
-3

I want to legitimately know why the FCC can ban something silly like "cunt" from TV shows

FCC has no power to regulate content of cable shows. Not only can it not prevent anyone from saying curse words on cable shows, it can't even prevent anyone from showing genitalia and unsimulated sexual intercourse on cable shows. There are legal pornography channels.

FCC has some regulations which mention the word "programming," but in the context of those regulations the word "programming" just means pricing/distribution models that cable companies offer their customers.

The confusion comes from the fact that FCC can regulate what goes over public airwaves (aka regular TV channels).

Since FCC can't regulate the content of the cable programs, the question is then "why can't it?" The answer is, of course, the First Amendment.

But the question of why the First Amendment makes it impossible for FCC to regulate content of cable programs is a legal, rather than a political, one.

There may have already been SCOTUS cases which have already established this or there maybe a prevailing legal scholarly opinion on the topic. Either way, it would be answered better by someone on law.SE

7
  • 5
    This seems to be an answer to the question on main, I don't think it shouldn't be posted as a meta answer.
    – JJJ Mod
    Aug 23, 2022 at 5:26
  • 1
    @JJJ it's a lead up to the last sentence, which says that this question doesn't belong on this site. Which answers the question "how can my question be made on topic?" It can only be made on-topic by being migrated to a different SE site.
    – wrod
    Aug 23, 2022 at 20:26
  • It could also be on topic if it was talking about FCC regulation in general instead of targeting a show.
    – Joe W
    Aug 24, 2022 at 19:09
  • @JoeW I kind of assumed that it would have to be answered in general terms rather than about any one show specifically. But even if it were phrased in general terms, I wouldn't think this community would be the best place (on stackexchange) to ask this question. Law.SE would be better equipped.
    – wrod
    Aug 24, 2022 at 20:33
  • While it might not be the best place I think it would still be on topic.
    – Joe W
    Aug 24, 2022 at 20:58
  • @JoeW you mean if it were significantly reworked? Maybe. But I think on law.SE it could be on topic as is or with minor modifications. And I would expect the quality of the answer to still be much better on law.SE.
    – wrod
    Aug 24, 2022 at 21:05
  • Even on law.se the question would have major problems focusing on a single person who does not host a news show.
    – Joe W
    Aug 24, 2022 at 23:20
-13

I have come to the conclusion that no matter how I edit my question, there will always be half the users of this site who want to power trip and delete my question no matter what.

Lots of opinionated people on this Politics community, obviously, but they don't know how to be neutral about settting ground rules and push their emotions into the actual moderation and management of the site instead of just posting their answer to my question instead.

My first experience here is rather disappointing, there doesn't seem to be anyone in charge here and it's just a bunch of different tribes fighting it out in every way possible apparently...

10
  • 1
    P.S. Quora lets you ask pretty much any question you want about anything.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 11, 2022 at 17:40
  • 10
    Stack Exchange is not Quora. It does not want to be Quora. I'm not trying to push you away from the site, and I'm genuinely sorry that your first impression has been so negative, but if the "anything goes" experience of Quora is what you prefer, I'm afraid you're not going to find it here.
    – F1Krazy
    Jun 11, 2022 at 17:51
  • 1
    The issue with your question is that you are asking why an opinion show is not regulated like a news show. If you remove references to Tucker Carlson you would have a decent question about why they don't regulate news shows. Also if you remove references to news shows you could ask why they don't regulate non news shows more but that would still need to be careful not to make it about Tucker Carlson only.
    – Joe W
    Jun 11, 2022 at 18:25
  • 3
    "there will always be half the users of this site who want to power trip and delete my question no matter what" Once you spend more time in Stack Exchange and get some more experience asking questions you'll get a better feel for what "on-topic" means. No system is perfect, but SE works so well even though it's open to the whole world because it of course has some constraints. There are certain types of questions that the community has decided are just too problematic as a group and so has made them off-topic. It does not meant that they are not good questions, just that they don't fit here.
    – uhoh
    Jun 11, 2022 at 18:56
  • For example, I thought that Are late-night network talk show hosts and comedy shows mostly if not uniformly strongly anti-Trump and generally anti-Republican Party these days? was a good and reasonable question (and still do) but it does not seem to be a good Politics SE question. I disagree, but for SE to work we have to at times defer to the community's decisions. Instead of leaving an unproductive answer and accepting it as the "right" answer, consider giving some more credence to the answers and comments you've received.
    – uhoh
    Jun 11, 2022 at 19:00
  • 1
    Consider trying another question; either one that follows this advice, or one on a new topic.
    – uhoh
    Jun 11, 2022 at 19:00
  • @uhoh yah literally the other users already edited my question to remove any reference to Fox News and it was still closed again... just a bunch of petty power trip people on this site seems like, will never be satisfied.
    – 46onstixx
    Jun 11, 2022 at 19:07
  • 5
    It still is referencing Tucker Carlson, if that reference is removed I would vote to reopen the question.
    – Joe W
    Jun 12, 2022 at 0:39
  • 6
    The idea that this community is pro-Tucker-Carlson is, at the very least, surprising. It is probably equally surprising to both left-leaning and right-leaning community members. Rightly or wrongly, it is more frequent that the accusations of bias, on this site, are leveled in the other direction.
    – wrod
    Jun 12, 2022 at 21:26
  • 3
    @46onstixx I do find it quite a bit ironic that your question here is asking about a question regulating news, but now you're complaining about over moderation? You seem to want to have things both ways, either regulating information is a Good Thing, or it is not. Which is it?
    – user5155
    Jun 13, 2022 at 12:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .