I am not saying that they should be disallowed from broadcasting - that's both unenforceable, and pure censorship. I am saying that they should not be able to call their broadcasts 'news'... but I suppose that's one tiny step away from censorship of anything the people in power may dislike. And libel laws are not an answer, they have terrible effects on the press in UK as far as I know.

Apparently Canada has a law that states that a news channel may not "broadcast false or misleading news", and that was a reason why FOX could not get a license there.

If the FCC can fine a television channel hundreds of thousands of dollars for swearing on air, or for a nip slip during a concert performance in the name of "public decency", should it not also be able fine a channel if it receives complaints about factually incorrect information being broadcast? After all, that is far more harmful than a swear word.

It could be framed as a public safety issue - if a station broadcasts something highly alarming, yet believable, after many years of propaganda and being trained to disbelieve anything that "mainstream media" say - how many people will believe it?

I don't know I suppose there is no easy answer. There are consumer protection laws designed against medical quackery (though also insufficient as far as I know)... But there does not seem to be a safe way to guard people against malicious information, since definition of it as malicious is so subjective, and it can be so easily manipulated to be turned against valid sources as well.

I guess the only way is to rely on organizations that educate and inform people and run counter-disinformation campaigns. FOX & their ilk have their listeners convinced that "leftist media" lies anyway though, so it seems almost hopeless, since any counter-propaganda will fall on ears already predisposed to disbelieve anything disagreeing with what FOX broadcasts. I'm personally very impressed with how very "evil-mastermind" level it is.