TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Appellate Court Rules Fox News Can Legally Lie.

Appellate Court Rules Fox News Can Legally Lie.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Dail...CourtRules2.htm

quote:

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. By Mike Gaddy Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Well, it isn't like Fox lying is anything new - although legitimizing it probably is.

I think that the media should be allowed to lie as much as it wants to. As I see things a privately owned media company should not be restricted in its reportings by law, but by the quest for large audiences: If it becomes common knowledge that a company lies, then people should be sufficiently intelligent to abstain from believing its reportings.
If a ban on lies in media was to be imposed, an entire range of grey issues would appear too. Say, the "Iraq posses WMD"-lie: Would a newspaper stating that "the US invaded Iraq to rid it of its WMD" be lying? Or how about a Christian newsletter quoting genesis?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think that the media should be allowed to lie as much as it wants to. As I see things a privately owned media company should not be restricted in its reportings by law, but by the quest for large audiences: If it becomes common knowledge that a company lies, then people should be sufficiently intelligent to abstain from believing its reportings. If a ban on lies in media was to be imposed, an entire range of grey issues would appear too. Say, the "Iraq posses WMD"-lie: Would a newspaper stating that "the US invaded Iraq to rid it of its WMD" be lying? Or how about a Christian newsletter quoting genesis?

I agree.

It would have opened Pandora's box had they ruled the other way, and in reality Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II have deregulated the media almost completely. Thus the court really had no standing to rule against Fox News.

The only problem is that many people will believe the lies, and yes it's not only Fox News that lies.

Within the NY Times for example, there was a reporter, Judith Miller, who was friends with the neocons.

She also "reported" many of their lies about Iraq.

Fox news can lie

they just need a disclaimer at the begining of their program telling all the plebs that their stories suffer from creative license

Ok so they can lie, but what about if the lie about someone i.e. couldn't they then be done for libal?

But still that is gay. If everywhere was like that the news wouldn't be worth watching.

The whole damn media lies as far as I am concerned, feeding us the same recycled shit everyday, and this is worldwide not just in America. I take great liberty to read many different sources as possible and its all slanted in some fashion. Fox is just more blatant than others The number one problem in media starts with the editorialists who write their columns with some clear bias to it. Just look at the BBC and fatboy Andrew Gilligan and his disgraceful exit from the beeb. Irresponsible journalism is the hallmark of many of today's broadcast companies Fox News no exception.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think that the media should be allowed to lie as much as it wants to. As I see things a privately owned media company should not be restricted in its reportings by law, but by the quest for large audiences: If it becomes common knowledge that a company lies, then people should be sufficiently intelligent to abstain from believing its reportings. If a ban on lies in media was to be imposed, an entire range of grey issues would appear too. Say, the "Iraq posses WMD"-lie: Would a newspaper stating that "the US invaded Iraq to rid it of its WMD" be lying? Or how about a Christian newsletter quoting genesis?

for once i may actually disagree with you here. there are waaaay to much wackos out there. to allow lies (lies in the meaning: something that everyone with facts knows is wrong.) would be to allow a lot of people to be brainwashed. I can't see anything, whatsoever good in allowing news agencies to lie, can you?

yes there may be sometimes where it hard to tell where it is a lie or not. but most often it is no problem. in the WMD case, bush was the one lying and giving bad fact, ie he should be held responsible not the newspapers. in the christian case, that is not an obvious lie, they most often have some vague things to back it up with, but if they lie about facts (for example telling that most scientist disagree with the evolution theory) then yes, they should be held responsible and punished for that imo.

so long as they don't curse or show a tit, its all good.

right?

Re: Appellate Court Rules Fox News Can Legally Lie.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Dail...CourtRules2.htm

So tell us something new...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. By Mike Gaddy Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

Haha. Welcome to 2004 buddy.
Anyway, its still funny that Fox News would fight so hard for their "fair and ballanced" right to lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus so long as they don't curse or show a tit, its all good. right?

Hehe, exactly! Violence and lies on prime time TV is much more preferable than any kind of nudity. Stick to that and there will be no fines.

Show a tit for a microsecond and whatch a nation explode

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew for once i may actually disagree with you here.

Mentally preparing yourself for your stay in North America, heh?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew there are waaaay to much wackos out there. to allow lies (lies in the meaning: something that everyone with facts knows is wrong.) would be to allow a lot of people to be brainwashed. I can't see anything, whatsoever good in allowing news agencies to lie, can you?

I'm not really the best person to ask that question, as I am a *very* liberal person believing in personal responsibility. To me the restriction on freedom imposed by a law on on lies, and the potential problems that might arise, are more important than the odd screwball being misled. I believe that the media, due to competition, will keep each other in check, and those who subscribe only to one news source, and thus runs the risk of being misled, are hopeless cases who would probably get facts mixed up anyway. At least the sample population that is the TA-forums seems to indicate a connection between number of news sources subscribed to and ability to think.
The problem of lies affecting the political navigation in democracies, should be handled in another way IMO: Give up democracy, or restrict voting rights to those who have elementary grasp on political facts. This might not include me, but as long as those with less insight than me is prevented from voting, I am fine by that.
I do not know if that is cynical, but that's how I feel

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The problem of lies affecting the political navigation in democracies, should be handled in another way IMO: Give up democracy, or restrict voting rights to those who have elementary grasp on political facts. This might not include me, but as long as those with less insight than me is prevented from voting, I am fine by that. I do not know if that is cynical, but that's how I feel

I never get this mentality.

If you are too stupid to get stupid people to vote for you, why should you be elected?

I prefer the guy who can get the most stupid (and smart) people to vote for him, as he at least demonstrates realistic understanding.


If you can't herd the sheep, you shouldn't be their leader.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Mentally preparing yourself for your stay in North America, heh? I'm not really the best person to ask that question, as I am a *very* liberal person believing in personal responsibility. To me the restriction on freedom imposed by a law on on lies, and the potential problems that might arise, are more important than the odd screwball being misled. I believe that the media, due to competition, will keep each other in check, and those who subscribe only to one news source, and thus runs the risk of being misled, are hopeless cases who would probably get facts mixed up anyway. At least the sample population that is the TA-forums seems to indicate a connection between number of news sources subscribed to and ability to think. The problem of lies affecting the political navigation in democracies, should be handled in another way IMO: Give up democracy, or restrict voting rights to those who have elementary grasp on political facts. This might not include me, but as long as those with less insight than me is prevented from voting, I am fine by that. I do not know if that is cynical, but that's how I feel

I largely agree with this assessment. The dangers of a regulatory body preventing the media from "lying" swings both ways. What kind of mandate would this regulatory body abide to? The press does exposes on what it perceives to be government corruption or wrongdoing all the time despite the fact that it may not have all the facts or know all the truths. So shall this regulatory body step in to prevent the story in order to avoid the dissemination of "lies"? It goes against the principles of a "free" press. A free press, by definition, should not be subject to ANY regulatory, governmental organization. They should be regulated by the public alone. If the public were to some reason desire to be lied to, than they wouldn't watch the media to begin with. In the event that a media source is blatantly fabricating news, than they'll be held accountable by other media sources and ultimately the public.

it's not like they can censor just because it's a law against it. sure fox news can lie if they want, but they will be sued afterwards much like with slander, i guess there's no problems in the US to sue someone for that? does that makes the press less free? and it's not harder to tell the difference between if it is or not there really either.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The problem of lies affecting the political navigation in democracies, should be handled in another way IMO: Give up democracy, or restrict voting rights to those who have elementary grasp on political facts. This might not include me, but as long as those with less insight than me is prevented from voting, I am fine by that. I do not know if that is cynical, but that's how I feel

i agree that that would be a more perfect system. tho who should be able to tell the difference between someone who is capable and someone who's not... it's impossible

but yeah, everytime our government encurrage everyone to go and vote "you don't need to know how this work to vote, but it is important to use your democratic right", that annoys the shit out of me, don't encourage the stupid ones to go and vote

btw, canada is not US, so i will still somewhat stick to the european side

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.