Fox News sued for the right to lie to people

[Aerows]

and won. They are "journalists". Suddenly people that tell the truth on their own time aren't just as qualified as Fox News to report news?

Please, elaborate on that for me.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. Yeah, didn't they win by calling it "entertainment"?

I just vaguely remember the case, but I do remember something like this.

[Aerows]

4. But suddenly, those are journalists

by the standards of DiFi and supporters of this "idea".

If you are allowed, by law, to tell lies because you have an audience, then you should be allowed to tell the truth if you have an audience, too.

They can't report in Canada because Fox News lies. So here in the land of "Freedom of the Press" we can't tell the truth unless we are certified journalists, but some of those lie like rugs.

This is the most unfathomable argument I've heard in a long, damn time, and I've heard some real winners.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. it is sick.

[Archae]

2. Actually, a journalist can be anyone who says they are one.

Nowadays bloggers are doing actual journalism.
(Far more than "news" organizations do...)

There are bad and good journalists.

This is nothing new.
The Hearst newspapers were notorious for making things up, they basically created the Spanish American War.

Walter Winchell was a vicious gossip spreader.

Dateline NBC rigged a pickup truck to explode for a show.
CNN ran a fake story about the US using poison gas in Vietnam.

Faux "news" is run by a Nixon goon.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Ronnie Ray-Guns, their hero sealed that years ago .

Or a least to be grossly inaccurate with no consequences .

[Aerows]

5. But we need to regulate journalists

Can someone explain how that works for me, in simple English?

[orpupilofnature57]

8. I can't but these people usally do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Aerows]

10. But they don't really

and like I said, if you are allowed to lie in the mass media BY LAW, then Joe Blow should have the same protections in telling the truth.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. I agree 100% and your right the Fairness Doctrine....

only covers Opinions and veiws, not knowingly misleading statements .

[Aerows]

17. It's the same conversation you always have to have

either free speech or no speech. I side on free speech and I am in no way interested in sanitized information. I can make my own choices on what I believe and do not.

[orpupilofnature57]

20. That's how they get away with lies, the difference

between that and being " Misinformed " at the time they broadcast it, is hard to prove , like weapons of mass destruction .

[Aerows]

7. Kicking

still looking for a supporter of this nonsense to respond. I'm still getting a bunch of *crickets* *crickets* because there really is no response.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Are you referring to Jane Acre and Steve Wilson ?

.

[Aerows]

11. Yep, and others

If they can enjoy the protection of the law to "report the news" in the mass media, no matter how grossly distorted it may be, everyone should enjoy that protection. That's why this is never going to turn out well for anyone making this argument. Fox can't even report in Canada. Now you are going to tell me that we will be regulating people that tell the truth when we don't regulate people who are full of it?

Oh no.

[dipsydoodle]

13. I only knew of that case

because we had a tv documentary on the subject with both of them here in the UK. We get stuff like that - you may not.

The effective outcome was that Fox could invent / create news.

[Aerows]

14. Precisely

And people are suddenly latching on to the idea that some people are journalists and some aren't just because they have control in the mass media, and that is horse shit of the highest stink.

[Aerows]

24. Question:

How is this handled in the UK. I can't believe they would disallow free speech, but then again allow blatant lies.

It's a plain question.

[dipsydoodle]

27. free speech v. blatant lies

Blatant lies are covered by our libel laws which are so stringent they are believed to cause "libel tourism". Freedom of speech with regard to our tv news channels or mainstream newspapers is clouded on occasions by our "super injunction laws".

Only occasions I recall where a "lie" may have been published were drama issues concerning celebrities published by tabloids and the penalty was out weighed by increased revenue. Where news items have subsequently proven to be untrue open apologies are made on the subject.

In other media in the old days there were running battles between Robert Maxwell , and others ,and Private Eye : http://www.private-eye.co.uk/blog/?p=165 The Eye has run since the early '60s and focus's on what the public "should know" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye

On journalism in general this covers the UK anyway : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28journalism%29 and your "Shied Laws" here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

We have no equivalent of Fox : certainly not Sky which despite being semi backdoor owned by Murdoch through BSkyB does not seem to be influenced by him.

I'd mentioned Jane Acre - the documentary was The Corporation. I was horrified when I saw that and sufficiently concerned even before joining here early 2006 to not give them any credibility whatsoever. I've got at least 12 news channels on satellite and while channel hopping I pause on Fox only if Martha Macallum's legs are there.

The current issue over there I missed as it cropped up 12th and I was in Spain 11th - 18th more or less out of touch.

On the subject of freedom of speech in general our hate laws here remove some aspects a subject which the some her on DU cannot get their head around :

Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3] Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom and I would maintain those laws are for the overall good.

[joeglow3]

23. Sadly, Fox is allowed in Canada.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

[Aerows]

25. Only on "fly-channels"

not widely. They at least have the sense to say no on broad channels to that horse crap.

[sabrina 1]

15. Okay, I will elaborate a little for you. People who tell the truth are a threat

to the Elites who are running the world. Fox is not a threat to them at all, in fact Fox works for them.

So when you understand that we are not a democracy anymore but COULD be if people who tell the truth, like Whistle Blowers, eg, were not treated like criminals, you understand why Fox is 'NEWS' no matter how many lies they tell, and people like RT and Whistle Blowers and the old Al Jazeera, are 'not journalists'.

The more desperate they become, the fast people are beginning to wake up.

[Aerows]

16. I don't know if the people at large are

but they are paying more attention, and they should be!

[sabrina 1]

19. I think that because of the Internet the younger generation are far

more informed than their parents and as a result they are not as easily fooled by the MSM which they mostly do not use as their news source.

Brzezinski eg, recently referred to what he calls 'a Global Awakening' due to more information being available, as making it far more difficult for the Western Powers to get approval for their wars, such as Syria:

Global Political Awakening Making Syrian War Difficult

Brzezinski’s call of warning to the “global political awakening” has only intensified in recent years. Last year during a speech in Poland, Brzezinski noted that it has become “increasingly difficult to suppress” and control the “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples.” Brzezinski also blamed the accessibility of “radio, television and the Internet” for the “universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”

“[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,” said Brzezinski during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal.

Despite attempts by both the Republican and Democratic leadership to gain support for a war in Syria, a new Reuters poll revealed that only 9 percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria. If the United States intervenes, it will be the least popular war in American history.

The massive and growing evidence forced out by the alternative media, which points to a US backed chemical attack by Al Qaeda led rebel forces to be blamed on Assad, has only accelerated the inevitable downfall of the corporate press that is now only trusted by 23 percent of the public.

I believe they are quite frantic over no longer being able to control all the information that is available now, as they had done with the MSM eg.

And I also believe that is why they are cracking down so hard on Whistle Blowers and News Orgs that are not under their control.

OWS scared them to death as it was all done online, and they had their OWN media recording every event, every arrest leading to the cops losing every case against them so far. They lied, but video taken by OWS members was able to expose the lies.

After spending so long 'buying' up all of the media, and so much money, I can almost understand how angry they are to see that no one is listening to their 'propaganda machine' anymore.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. +1000 !!!!

[Fumesucker]

18. It's not like Fox is a bunch of counterproductive left wing nuts

We all know who the ~real~ enemy is and it's not Fox.

When getting all bipartisany with the Republicans it's not to the advantage of the Democrats engaged in delicate negotiations to have a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism shooting down all the pragmatic, sensible ideas with facts and logic and stuff.

[Aerows]

22. Yeah, you are right

Liberals are the villains in this situation because they believe in horrible ideas like freedom of the press and not bombing the hell out of a country to save it.

Oh wait, I said that out loud. I must be a disgusting liberal that values journalists, and finds that those on Fox, CNN and CBS aren't them.

[JEFF9K]

26. They should be charged under false labeling statutes for purporting to dispense news.