Jonathan Zasloff - a University of California at Los Angeles law professor - said in a posting to the "Journolist" mailing list that the federal government should take Fox News off the air. (You can contact him through law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=768).

From [1]:

“I hate to open this can of worms,” [Jon Zasloff wrote in a posting on Journolist], “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull [Fox's] broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s (Michael Scherer), who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Jonathan Zasloff - a University of California at Los Angeles law professor - said in a posting to the "Journolist" mailing list that the federal government should take Fox News off the air. (You can contact him through law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=768).

From [1]:

“I hate to open this can of worms,” [Jon Zasloff wrote in a posting on Journolist], “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull [Fox's] broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s (Michael Scherer), who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

-------------------
[1] dailycaller . com/2010/07/21/
liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/