The problem with Fox is that they blur the line between news and opinion programming. This is why they could have a relatively competent journalist/anchor like Shep Smith amid their stable of raving opinion loons. The (tiny) news division of Fox can almost be normal, but the opinion shows are cranking out the propaganda. And with opinion, you don’t necessarily have to be 100% accurate.
News or opinion doesn’t matter, legally. If either of them get something wrong, they have an ace in the hole: NYT v Sullivan. This is a Supreme Court decision that says media outlets (and citizens, too) can’t be sued for transmitting inaccurate information, as long as there was no malice aforethought.
Even the best reporters get it wrong sometimes, without meaning any harm, and they deserve protection from lawsuits over libel, slander and defamation when mistakes happen. That’s why NYT v Sullivan exists.
The problem comes when bad actors like Fox take advantage of that principle to distort, but pretend that they meant no harm. They “sincerely” thought the info they had was accurate, to the best of their knowledge (I know, I know, but work with me here).
You and I know they damned well did mean harm by trotting our total bullshit, but try proving that in a court of law. It takes an enormous amount of evidence to show that malice was intended. First of all, you’re not in their heads—and can’t be. Second, that means you have to find evidence though other means to demonstrate an intention to lie to cause harm. And good luck with that. If the defendant (liar) is a reporter and used an anonymous source, then you can’t make a reporter give up that source. Because First Amendment. And that kills any chance of a suit proceeding any further.
It’s a really frustrating situation, especially for public figures—including politicians—in the US, who, because they are public figures, don’t have the privacy rights that the rest of us do in battling a defamation-type suit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
