Ok, follow along with me on this

[Fovea]

Point 1.
Journalists supposedly fulfill a public trust by dispassionately
reporting the truth as they see it. They get constitutional protections on speech and sources in order to do so.

Point 2.
Commercial speech is not as stringently protected, becuase is serves purposes that touch the public welfare only tangentially, if at all.

Point 3.
Here you have Armstrong Williams taking money from the administration to shill for NCLB, oblivious to the fact that it is no longer journalistic, but commercial speech.

Conclusion 1.
Armstrong has no right to the protections for any of his speech regarding administration policy. Anyone who feels material harm from his opinions on any subject touching the Bush* administration should
be able to sue him for damages.

Conclusion 2.
Any network which does not immediately determine who, if anyone is on their staff, and does not repudiate all statements that are suspect should be liable for the same damages.

So someone like MMA, or MoveOn might consider starting a class action suit. Or, as an alternative, start pressuring for a formal investigation of the whole profession. There is precident for the investigation, of course. But what about civil damages?
Isn't this a big ass tort?

Am I wrong here?

[trezic]

1. Eh?

1. I'm no legal genius, but that doesn't sound at all like a tort. Potential 'injury' seems speculative at best and there appears to be no cause of action.

2. Formal investigation of journalists? I wasn't aware Tailgunner Joe was back from the dead. Investigating people for private concerns, like ethics generally, is the job of the GOP.

[Fovea]

3. Injury... and investigation

1. You watch the broadcast by a journalist who says "things are going well in Iraq." You volunteer and get your legs blown off by an IED.

2. No, the Payola scandal of the fifties is what I was referring to.

The profession of journalism has not lived up to its responsibilities.
If it is not willing to honor its actual raison d'etre, they should have no more protection than the people who make cigarettes.

[trezic]

5. Nope

1. As a cause of action, that's extremely weak. Assuming a court would even let it stand, it would run headlong into the 1st amendment. The defense would argue that allowing such a suit would, in effect, allow for government to dictate the news. Of course, that's just a guess since any such suit would fail the initial motion to dismiss.

2. Government investigating journalists' reporting is no different from investigating their private lives. Though this is not expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment, it remains a subtle assault on it nonetheless.

3. The truth is that reporters are lazy, not corrupt. Too many years of spoonfeeding via press conference and the like has atrophied any ability to truly investigate. All most news organizations do now is report on what each other reports. While this is sad, it's not much different from the whole of American history.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fovea]

4. No

Are you?