Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Problem is: it’s Perfectly Legal for Them to Lie to Us.
https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-problem-is-its-perfectly-legal-for-them-to-lie-to-us/Source info at the link.
This always surprises people: the Courts have ruled that news organizations can tell lies whenever they choose. Freedom of speech, dontcha know. Jane Akre, an award-winning Journalist, was hired by Fox News affiliate WTVT to be, well, a journalist. You know, someone who reports news.
To Foxs surprise, she and her team found some news. News that one of Foxs sponsors did not like at all. So Fox ordered her to put some lies in the broadcast, to keep the sponsors happy and the money rolling in. Ms. Akre refused, on grounds of professional ethics.
Fox then fired her and her husband; they sued, and the courts ruling, incredibly, made it clear that there was no law requiring that news organizations provide truthful content. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Lies are A-OK for those upon whom we rely for accurate reporting.
That ruling, as we look back, opened the Falsehood Floodgates the rest of the way for politicians and their BFFs in the Infotainment Industry. One may still sue for libel, although it is very hard to win and takes years. One may sue over a false advertisement, but those cases are likewise hard to win and take years as well.
Meanwhile, Fox and their compadres repeat their lies so often in the interim, the lies wind up being believed to be true by a large majority of Americans. A few recent examples: Benghazi, Obamas birth certificate, and much of the Michael Brown coverage.
This writer loves him some First Amendment, yes he does. However, there is no reason not to be able to require that news providers at least put a label on lies: call em editorials, or speculative, or unproved. It would be better to make the lies illegal, but the Roberts court aint gonna outlaw lies. Not with the current load of Bushbots and Reaganistas forming the majority, anyway.
So, Gentle Reader, remember that you really CANT trust anything you read in the papers or see on the TeeVee. You are being lied to 24/7/365 by at least some of the news sources you have heretofore relied upon for information. Youll have to keep a line open to Snopes, FactCheck, Politifact, and other such sources before you can believe Thing One the newsies tell you.
Because in modern America, its legal for rich corporations, news outlets and politicians to lie to you whenever they want, about whatever they want, however they want.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 1041 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (23)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Problem is: it’s Perfectly Legal for Them to Lie to Us. (Original Post)
riqster
Dec 2014
OP
phantom power
(25,966 posts)1. rec
riqster
(13,986 posts)2. Thanks.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)3. Imagine if the US had a system similar to that
of Canada, where Fox "News" can't be broadcast because they lie. Would do wonders here.
riqster
(13,986 posts)4. Agreed. But the First amendment makes it tricky.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)5. It's tricky but certainly not impossible.
After all, our law already has limitations or prohibitions on certain forms of speech: defamation, perjury, incitement to violence, child pornography, and, most tellingly, commercial speech (which enjoys much less protection than political speech). If we can regulate advertising we can certainly regulate lying when presented to the public as "news".
riqster
(13,986 posts)6. True. I offered a couple of workarounds in the OP.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)7. Some might call it being the "least untruthful possible". n/t
riqster
(13,986 posts)8. That was doubleplusgood!
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)9. "Fraud" used to be considered a bad thing...
In today's political/economic environment it appears to be a prerequisite for power and profit.
riqster
(13,986 posts)10. It's so common it is rarely called out anymore.