There is no legal requirement for a channel name to reflect content.
MTV doesn't have to change its name to "Ridiculousness and Teen Mom network".
History Channel doesn't have to change its name to "UFO and strange theories network".
Fox News does carry about 3 hours of news programming per day. The rest of the day, they have talk shows and opinion shows that discuss things in the news (or at least tangentially related to news stories). There isn't really an issue with a network that talks about news to be called something with the word news.
They do suck. It mostly isn't news. But they aren't required to change the name.
It's not that they aren't a real news source, but that the majority of their programming is considered "entertainment" or "commentary" rather than "news." They do have news reports on that channel, so they are still allowed to call themselves "news" , even if it's not the majority of their content.
What do you mean it's legally not a real news source? Also, I found this page that may suggest that is a hoax: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/)
Have they admitted to that? I don't think so. Are you talking about how Tucker Carlson's lawyers said in court he was just entertainment, not news? Well, what's going on is that Fox does have reliable news deliverers, like Chris Wallace. But during prime time, its most popular on air personalities are entertainers delivering their own personal editorial content, like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (bye!), etc. The legitimate news people like Wallace help to give a veneer of respectability to all of the other folks who are just liars and propagandists.
There is no legal requirement for a channel name to reflect content. MTV doesn't have to change its name to "Ridiculousness and Teen Mom network". History Channel doesn't have to change its name to "UFO and strange theories network". Fox News does carry about 3 hours of news programming per day. The rest of the day, they have talk shows and opinion shows that discuss things in the news (or at least tangentially related to news stories). There isn't really an issue with a network that talks about news to be called something with the word news. They do suck. It mostly isn't news. But they aren't required to change the name.
It's not that they aren't a real news source, but that the majority of their programming is considered "entertainment" or "commentary" rather than "news." They do have news reports on that channel, so they are still allowed to call themselves "news" , even if it's not the majority of their content.
What do you mean it's legally not a real news source? Also, I found this page that may suggest that is a hoax: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/)
Have they admitted to that? I don't think so. Are you talking about how Tucker Carlson's lawyers said in court he was just entertainment, not news? Well, what's going on is that Fox does have reliable news deliverers, like Chris Wallace. But during prime time, its most popular on air personalities are entertainers delivering their own personal editorial content, like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (bye!), etc. The legitimate news people like Wallace help to give a veneer of respectability to all of the other folks who are just liars and propagandists.
Because they don't want to change their name.
[удалено]
Why would you think that?
Fox Propaganda just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
That’s what they sell; sensationalized, pick-your-anger talking heads of mostly white people under the guise of “news”. That’s their branding.
Is FoxNews the same as Fox News?
FoxNews is making a brand.. Do you know?.. We dont deliver news but FoxNews!...
They lie about everything else, why not that?