It’s time for this question to be front and center: Should Fox News be allowed to exist? Brain-mashing as a business model shouldn’t be legal.

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t understand why you’re not allowed to manufacture bucatini that doesn’t have a certain threshold of iron in it but you can broadcast brain-mashing falsehoods and goad people toward terrorism.

( https://www.grubstreet.com/2020/12/2020-bucatini-shortage-investigation.html)

If the Fairness Doctrine, applying to broadcast, was constitutional, why would a new Fairness Doctrine, applying more broadly, be a violation of that same Constitution?

Twelve percent of Americans supported the terrorist insurrection on the Capitol. After the fact. You cannot pin this only on leaders. This has been institutionalized incitement in which the media played a giant role, and democracy is endangered by it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-poll/majority-of-americans-want-trump-removed-immediately-after-u-s-capitol-violence-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN29D2VG

Are there huge questions of a slippery slope? Of course. Could this regulation be abused? Of course. These are the hard things we'd have to figure out. But none of that means, to me, that a business model of incitement and falsehood is absolutely protected.

And in the interim, I'd love to hear more of the bottom-up ways people suggest.

The advertiser pressure has worked. I've heard talk of cable subscribers demanding incitement-free packages.

What are the other mechanisms you see?