as his show has lost more than 30 sponsors since his remarks describing the President as a racist. Yahoo news has more details. This has been a big deal at DKos and some other left-blogosphere sites for a couple of weeks now.

The FCC has no jurisdiction over the content on cable systems, only on broadcast networks. The Fox Television Network falls under the FCC, but, like CNN, MSNBC, and other channels that are only carried over cable systems, the Fox News Network is not subject to government oversight.

This is reason HBO et al. can get as raunchy as they want.

I wouldn't concern myself about them. Rupert has screwed up royally and is already talking about selling the Dow-Jones Industrial Average to bring in some cash flow. He overleveraged his buying spree and the bills are coming due. There will be a financial blood-letting in the not too distant future. Save your pennies and you may be able to buy Fox News and fire everyone as part of the bankruptcy.

The latest rumor is that Beck is on an unscheduled vacation while the guys in the front office try to figure what to do with him. If he can't bring in revenue, Rupert is not going to want him around.

uses his cable properties to spread lies then that might be grounds to pull his broadcast license. He owns a broadcast network.

Only individual stations are. Networks exist because the individual stations contract with them to provide content; either party can end the affiliation at any time according to the terms of their agreement.

Networks can, however, own broadcast stations. Murdoch, through NewsCorp, owns 27 stations, almost all in key TV markets, and that is one strategy that could be tried. You'd probably have to find local representatives in each market to file the complaints in order to have the best chance of success.

FWIW, the FCC has pulled a grand total of three broadcast licenses since its creation in 1934. The law provides plenty of leeway for media outlets to tell untruths. Anyone with an interest in this subject would do good to study the New York Times v. Sullivan decision; that's the one that requires that libel and slander of public figures requires proof of actual malice done. Not saying that it wouldn't be worth a try; just that old-fashioned advertiser boycotts would probably be more effective in the long run.

Murdoch is not content to merely lie, he incites violence. On his radio shows, on his cables, and so one. And if he uses his cable shows to incite violence that could be used to show that he is too immoral to have an FCC broadcast license.