|
Appellate Court Rules Fox News Can Legally Lie.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSZ |
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.
|
|
|
|
| arctic |
| Well, it isn't like Fox lying is anything new - although legitimizing it probably is. :p |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| 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. |
|
|
| tathi |
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 |
|
|
| Dervish |
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. :whip: |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| The whole damn media lies as far as I am concerned, feeding us the same recycled 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. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| 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. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
so long as they don't curse or show a tit, its all good.
right?
:conf: |
|
|
| smokeape |
So tell us something new...
:rolleyes:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Ondrayce |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
so long as they don't curse or show a tit, its all good.
right?
:conf: |
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 :p |
|
|
|
|
