Could news organizations end up facing legal liability (civil if not criminal)

[avebury]

for continuing to provide coverage of Trump's virus rallies?

Rational people know that Trump give out bad information every day. But a woman and her husband took the koi medicine that contains the drug that Trump was touting as a cure for the virus and the husband died and the wife was very ill in the hospital. Trump won't face liability as his office will protect him. But at what point can the news media be held accountable for helping Trump to spread dangerous misinformation?

[Walleye]

1. I thought so as well.

If a newspaper publishes damaging false information they are liable. Doesn’t matter where it came from.

[Jirel]

2. Not just for reporting "The (p)Resident said..."

Politicians lying is nothing new, but their lies are still news. If a paper started publishing false info as the truth, not as “That anal fistula said...,” it would be different.

[avebury]

3. There is a difference between reporting what the President says

and knowingly reporting information that could harm others. Where the chance of real harm if possible, the media should have a responsibility to provide corrective information. Failure to do so should make them liable to at least a civil suit. The I am just reporting what the President said is no better than those who said that they were following orders in the Nuremberg Trials.

[PA Democrat]

4. I stopped watching.

I won't give that POS the 'ratings" because you KNOW he is checking on them.

Besides, hearing his constant self-aggrandizement and his constant lies and all the sycophants on stage feeding his ego increases my stress level.

[DFW]

5. Subtle nuances

A newspaper can be sued for libel for calling Hillary Clinton "crooked."

They cannot be sued for reporting that Trump called her "crooked."

I don't even think they can be sued for calling Trump incompetent, a liar, a crook or even a pig-faced psychopath. It is not slander to publish what is public knowledge.

[avebury]

6. There is a difference in reporting his lies and reporting his statements that

can cause real harm to people. A rational person would know that there are people out there dumb enough to listen to him and act in a manner that is harmful. The couple taking the koi medicine because Trump said it had been approved for other uses and it will protect you from the virus is a prime example. Should a rational entity (i.e. the media one would hope) really be providing air time for the reporting of down right harmful information?. Knowing Trump's propensity for lies and idiotic statements you would hope that the media would learn their lesson to now report these rallies live but send reporters and cameras to attend the rallies and reduce it down to a five minute piece on the news. That would allow them to reduce the amount of damaging information released to the public, report what is worthy and fact check him for the idiot statements. I view the current practice as aiding and abetting Trump and the media is complicit with what is going on.

[DFW]

8. It IS aiding and abetting Trump

But they can always get out of legal liability by "reporting" rather than "claiming."

I think it's a near certainty that both Trump and Fox have legal staff working round the clock to protect them from liability for anything they might let slip. Probably even a declaration of war. (Sorry about vaporizing Novosibirsk, Vladimir, that's not what I meant to say)

[onenote]

7. no

[jberryhill]

9. No

[Chainfire]

10. No

However, Trump has not gotten the memo with his suing over editorial comments.