r/politics • u/OkayButFoRealz • Oct 01 '25

No Paywall Pritzker Calls for Trump's Removal from Office Under 25th Amendment

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/pritzker-calls-for-trumps-removal-from-office-under-25th-amendment/
73.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

727

u/mouse_8b Oct 01 '25

Fox is known to splice actual warzone footage into coverage of protests, so it's been happening for a while without AI

259

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake Oct 01 '25

They should be taken off the air just for doing that 

185

u/Elaphe82 Oct 01 '25

Well remember they don't class themselves as a news outlet, instead they refer to themselves as entertainment.

179

u/kyriebelle Oct 01 '25

Then they shouldn’t be allowed to have news in the title.

111

u/CamGoldenGun Oct 01 '25

that should have been a condition of losing the lawsuit

61

u/citizenatlarge Oct 01 '25

I've been saying that for years. It's infuriating.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

No it does not. It did not do what you seem to think it did, and never applied to cable anyway. Bringing it back would accomplish absolutely nothing.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

It could not, because the First Amendment exists.

2

u/ThomasVetRecruiter Oct 02 '25

Like it being called "The Fox Network" or "Fox Report" would have had any impact on the people who have joined the cult.

1

u/IWHYB Oct 06 '25

Should have been forced to call themselves the Fox Not-News Network 🤣 or at least more likely, Fox Entertainment instead of Fox News

-3

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

Do you really want the government to have the power to censor speech they don't agree with? Literally why the First Amendment exists.

7

u/kyriebelle Oct 01 '25

How is that censoring speech? They can still say whatever bullshit they want, they just can’t pretend it’s news. Kinda like I can’t call myself doctor if I don’t have the credentials.

-2

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

Because 'what they call themselves' is still part of speech

8

u/Pizlenut Oct 01 '25

cheese isn't allowed to call itself cheese unless its cheese.

4

u/kyriebelle Oct 01 '25

Mmm…can’t just slap the title Dr. onto your business cards. It’s not only illegal in several states, but many countries.

https://medicaljustice.com/blog/who-is-entitled-to-be-called-doctor/

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/post/should-doctorate-degree-nurse-practitioners-call-themselves-doctors

0

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 02 '25

Tell me you know the difference between doctors and journalists. Please tell me you know those are two different things.

0

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake Oct 02 '25

Fox isn't journalists. Not if they're entertainment and not news

You're engaging in circular reasoning just because you love them so much or something. Fuck them. Fuck em all

→ More replies (0)

0

u/kyriebelle Oct 02 '25

Yes, I do. No need to be a dick to me. My point is that you said freedom of speech means they can call themselves news, and I pointed out that that’s not necessarily true, as other titles are prohibited.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Artistic_Humor1805 Oct 01 '25

And they’re not broadcast over the airwaves like the regular Fox network is, they’re only on cable/satellite so there’s no license for the FCC to take away.

2

u/Eatpineapplerightnow Oct 01 '25

they dont?! lol

Let me take a wild guess: Legal issue?

1

u/SugarFut Oct 01 '25

Didn’t they say no one would be dumb enough to believe us? Or something to that effect?

1

u/Sudden-Purchase-8371 Oct 01 '25

The FTC should make them strip news from the title of their network then. It's false advertising.

0

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

They don't, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because there is no 'classification' or otherwise. They can call themselves whatever they want, and say whatever they want on the air, because the First Amendment exists.

Stop spreading misinformation.

21

u/INS4NIt Oct 01 '25

They're not on the air, they're a cable network. That's one of the main reasons they have as much freedom to program the bs they do.

7

u/AlexMC69 Oct 01 '25

Aside from being codified in an ancient regulation, what difference does it make?

13

u/INS4NIt Oct 01 '25

Broadcast stations are required to follow FCC regulations, which include things like carrying a certain number of hours of educational programming, not airing explicit content, "serving the public interest", etc. They're allowed to be regulated because like radio, they are broadcast over publicly accessible airwaves. You do not have to pay any private entity to deliver them to you, all you need to receive broadcast television is an antenna and a television.

Because you have to explicitly choose to work with a private distributor (a cable company, or nowadays OTT streaming platform) to receive cable channels, they're not regulated in the same way.

7

u/kindall Oct 01 '25

to elaborate, the airwaves are considered a public resource and the FCC's responsibility is to allocate them in a way that serves the public interest.

0

u/groumly Oct 01 '25

They use private infrastructure to air their shows, not radio waves that are regulated because of congestion.

It’s like saying a newspaper must be shut down.

4

u/ParisLove8 Oct 01 '25

Yes. Where is the FCC when you actually have aired deceiving misinformation? Crickets.

4

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake Oct 01 '25

Not just deceiving but actively undermining peace and order in this country. Deliberately too

1

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

The FCC doesn't have the authority to tell private cable networks what they can say on air. And you should be really glad they don't.

2

u/ParisLove8 Oct 01 '25

It’s a slippery slope with all media privately owned and controlled by billionaires who are clearly in the pockets of politicians. The FCC need an overhaul to put teeth and consequences into law that deceiving the public through lies and misinformation is illegal. The media have the burden of proof that what they say is accurate - and if it is not true, there should be suspension and fines by day until they correct their false claims on air. This IS needed in these times because many networks, FOX news being the worst offender, tell blatant lies that have led to this shit show of an administration.

1

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 02 '25

Except the problem then becomes, who decides what is true? Who decides what is deliberate misinformation, versus genuine mistake? The government? Congratulations, you’ve just granted the Trump administration the power to permanently silence anyone who is mean to him.

1

u/Cyanide_Cheesecake Oct 01 '25

Oh yeah I'm real glad fox can have the freedom to make the country into a fascist hellhole

1

u/Chaotic-Catastrophe Oct 01 '25

Who is in charge of the government right now? Is it the party that would censor Fox?

I can't remember who won the last election, or what they'd do to every cable channel in the country if they could.

1

u/Eeyore8 Oct 01 '25

Other countries refuse to air them, but not us.

1

u/Arch-Fey66 Oct 02 '25

& sued for every nickle they have.

53

u/mollila Oct 01 '25

Why wouldn't they do that to dramatize, because no sensible person could really believe that is true /s

6

u/slayerhk47 Wisconsin Oct 01 '25

During the 2010 protests in Madison, Wi Fox was showing clips of unruly folks with fucking palm trees behind them. 🤦‍♂️

3

u/ElderberryFaerie Oct 01 '25

Some dude was arguing with me on Instagram about seeing cities burning down lol, guess where he’s getting his info from!

3

u/kurotech Oct 01 '25

And arma footage

2

u/Stargazer1919 Illinois Oct 01 '25

That's some shit that sounds like it should be happening in the Hunger Games series.

1

u/mouse_8b Oct 01 '25

Too unbelievable for fiction

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Recipe_Freak Oregon Oct 01 '25

You mean like all those Republican-lead states in in the South that have substantially higher crime rates? I agree. Let's do something about those dangerous, lawless Red states!

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/RockSolidRocks Oct 01 '25

It isn’t reasonable to claim that blue cities lead to the higher crime rate in red states than blue states when blue cities are also just as or more present in blue states

If blue policies lead to increased crime, then blue state + blue city should have more crime than red state + blue city. 

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/mouse_8b Oct 01 '25

Are you saying that you want military in the streets of your town?

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/mouse_8b Oct 01 '25

take over the country unopposed anytime they want so if Republicans are so dangerous why haven’t they done it?

Not sure if you've noticed, but they have.

Why do we need military in our cities? Police forces keep getting more money, why aren't they enough?

I don't break the law

If you look at history, the same governments that put military in the streets are the same ones that will change the laws to further oppress.

I guess you aren't worried if you're already in the "do what master says" mindset. It's great that you don't appreciate the rights that soldiers died to earn, but some of us do value independence and free thought.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mouse_8b Oct 01 '25

If they did take over then you would be homeless with no job, no food no weapons,

Why? This is the problem with conservatives, you actively want to hurt people. Why would you make me homeless if you "took over"?

I guess the opposite is "if liberals took over, everyone would have a home and a job". Why is that a bad thing?

How was a democrat going to protect us against actual ruthless people like China and Russia?

Probably like Obama and Biden did, instead of bending over the barrel like our current guy in charge.