Can we file a consumer class action lawsuit against MSM??

[proudtobeadem]

for not covering this?
I'm talking about the paid for MSM ...cable.
I remember a recent post that said 106 news stories not or under reported in the MSM.
There is some kind of consumer protection law regarding false advertising, they say they are reporting the news but are not. Therefore, can't we as consumers sue their b*tts off??
If we win they either start to do their jobs or pay up, if they settle we can use the money to pay for advertising in the papers etc...either way I think we can't lose.
Am I wrong? Any lawyers in the house? R.Nader?

[Quakerfriend]

1. Great idea! n/t

:bounce:

[sepia_steel]

2. I'd be interested in this.

I'll be watching this thread unfold. Most of you are much more in-the-know than I am.

[proudtobeadem]

3. I have to leave the computer for a while, can someone keep this kicked?

I would really love to find out if viable.
Even if it takes too long to affect this eletion, it may be used for other reasons.

[bemis12]

27. Ummm yeah, you can sue

You can't win or anything, but anyone can sue. Nobody has any particular right to have a news story aired.

[shance]

4. Anyone can file a lawsuit. This makes sense to me.

At large, our media outlets are not providing a "satisfactory product", not to mention they are engaging in suppression of important information necessary to the health and well being of citizens at large as well as our country.

[proudtobeadem]

42. Can anyone get in touch with Nader? Or even Arnebeck to ask?

I don't think they are our personal attorneys, but these are the types of cases Nader works on, and it would only help Arnebeck's case if this was more publicized.

[libertypirate]

5. There is a big problem, technically we are not consumers

We are the product...

I would really to stick it to them, but I am not sure we can.

[IAMREALITY]

7. From Somebody Who Is AS WE SPEAK Writing His Final Project

For His Marketing Class,

We are ABSOLUTELY the consumer.

[indigolady]

17. "THE PRODUCT"? how is that?

If we pay our cable company to serve us these channels...isn't that a product?

[libertypirate]

19. Not with the News Media...

Who pays them, not your cable provider...

The comercials... You don't pay for the content... You pay for the cable, box, service.

[IAMREALITY]

34. HAHAHAHA

Too Funny.

In order for a cable company to even carry a channel there exist financial agreements, of course.

The Product of the marketing mix is the program, The Promotion is via commercials/ads, the Price comes through negotiations with cable companies and networks, commercial providers, and a ratio of what we pay for the luxury of cable, and the Place aspect is our homes or wherever a tv broadcasting the content is available.

We ARE the consumer, and the show IS the product.

[proudtobeadem]

41. That's what I think, but I know very little

about business and nothing about law, that's why I was putting this out there hoping someone might.

[libertypirate]

47. Yes In theory, but who you going to blame who's fault

Pin one person down... And doing it in enough time to change what has happened... Can you say the longest way possible. Do you think we have years, months, or days?

[proudtobeadem]

49. We may not win in time, but we may make

make news on the other channels, and be taken a little more seriously.
If we win it might set a precedent for others to change.

[libertypirate]

70. You have a better chance...

accomplishing your goal if you focus on their weakness...

AKA: journalistic credibility

If they get information and would look stupid if they did not publish it you win too.

[shraby]

46. If the show is the product and we are the consumer,

the show is sold as "News". I'd call that false advertising, because how much news is there in the PetersonKobeJackson story that they feed to us every day????

[libertypirate]

69. I agree, they can't have it both ways

Unfortunately the customer is the one who pays, they have more control over the content then the viewers. Anyone want to disagree?

If they could get us to watch the commercials without having to create entertainment then they would. We choose to watch TV and have the power to turn the damn things off.

[BattyDem]

6. I've been thinking about that for a while now ...

I wonder if it would be possible to do something like that. :shrug:

On edit: If people supported the war, enlisted in the military, voted for Bush*, etc. - based on the lies and misinformation disseminated by the media, wouldn't that be grounds for some kind of a lawsuit?

[NotNInch]

9. 2nd post - 1st kick n/t

[newyawker99]

61. Hi NotNInch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[WebeBlue]

13. Oh, I like that one A Lot ! Deception of media.

BattyDem, I like your thinking on this. Sure wish we had attorneys here that could offer up advice. I do think the msm is very much complicit in the lies of war and Iraq and should also be held accountable for their part in perpetuating the war with falsehoods. Apologies won't cut it.

[IAMREALITY]

8. I Like the Concept, But Unfortunately

The Lawsuit would be dismissed in the blink of an eye.

There is no legal or civil precedent to back up the claim. As mad as we are at the MSM, they ARE reporting news, just not the news we want them to be reporting. Now if they were broadcasting news reports that said "no hearing on irregularities was held yesterday, the hearing didn't take place", now that is a different story.

[Nite Owl]

11. But wouldn't a lack of

reporting that led to false conclusions on a reported story be an angle? It's a sin of omission. If we own the airwaves aren't they obliged in any way to tell the whole truth. Not conservative or liberal just the truth.

[lonestarnot]

37. So ommission or suppression of those that want to cover other side

is not news? And if it is news then what?

[IAMREALITY]

40. Firstly No Idea What In The World You Meant

Secondly, No, the lawsuit would still be completely baseless.

I know we all want to do whatever is in our power and have hope for each idea thrown our way, but as Reality I must always speak what is real, and this lawsuit would never stand a chance.

[lonestarnot]

63. Now come come, don't you remember the suits v. TV and board

games (Dungeons & Dragons) for the liability in murder cases? This just as far fetched but still prosecuted.

[Clark2008]

39. It might be dismissed

but the coverage of a lawsuit based on the lack of coverage of the election fraud would be worth it.

It would make the news... it's too off-beat not to.

[IAMREALITY]

43. Ok If You Believe That

I don't think there is a chance in hell it would get even the slightest bit of coverage. Even more you would need to find a lawyer willing to put his career on the line for a frivalous lawsuit. Good luck there.

And none of this is meant as disrespect to Proudtobeadem, I have respect for him. He merely asked the question with hopes it could be valid. Hell...I wish it was valid.

Unfortunately it isn't, but I actually give him much credit for his passion to fight this and think out of the box to find ways to win and expose the truth.

And for that, a toast to him.

:toast:

[proudtobeadem]

71. Hey I'm not a him

but thank you anyway! :)
I wish there was some way to beat him, but I fear our chances are next to nil. :( -But that's not gonna keep me from trying!!
It ain't over yet! We're doing good no matter who ends up in the WH

[tsuki]

51. Coverage by whom?

[proudtobeadem]

52. But aren't they supposed to weight the importance

of a story? When you consider that because of the fraud, democracy itself is taking it's last breaths, and they report incessantly about the Peterson trial, and just give a cursory dismissal to this story they're not doing their job, and not giving us what we paid for.

Also they may not throw it out if it's enough of us and we have the law on our side -that's what we need to find out.
As far as a precedent, see post#'s 20,21,22,23,and 24.
And if this is not the same type of case -we could set a precedent. :)

[IAMREALITY]

53. Unfortunately That's More Than Enough For Us To Be Dissatisfied With Them

But not nearly enough for a lawsuit.

I feel ya though Proud..... It fuckin pisses me off too. Don't worry though, my friend, we will find a way to win this.

[WebeBlue]

10. It's been on my mind for awhile too..can we file lawsuit

I don't know enough to know where to start. I learned as Bill Moyers reported on PBS Now, that we, the public, own the airwaves, and the primary network channels lease the airwaves using advertising to help pay the way but that they have a legally binding contract to provide public newsworthy awareness content. That report really got me fired up about the primary channels lack of useful coverage, but I don't know how or if it applies to cable channels which are a stripe of a different color.

Bookmarking this thread, hoping to learn more from others perhaps more knowledgeable, but I for one, would love to be part of a class-action suit if it is viable. I'm very disillusioned with msm after the election coverage and the inadequate coverage of Iraq.

kicking it.

[BR_Parkway]

18. Then a Breach of Contract lawsuit

for not providing newsworthy awareness content. Probably won't win, but if enough people were signed on to it, might get some attention.

[hootinholler]

57. I'm really sorry....

That's a great angle, but the FCC is currently busy attempting to expand its powers to include regulating cable content and private satellite content.

But, Might I offer (again) RICO as a method of prosecution and halting the Electors in Ohio, or at least forcing Ohio to cast 2 slates of Electors?

I haven't yet found if it flew or not, although I've found articles pointing to it's not working, but one creative lawyer was able to at least harrass the Catholic Church with it. Why shouldn't we hassle the RNC? RICO is much stronger with many littler crimes spread across state lines that show evidence of a wink and nod control of a corrupt organization.

Where is our prosecutor? What lawyer has the stones to file this? Do we have to recruit Johny Cochran? :P Maybe one whose boss is saying "Julia Bates’ staff continues to set the standard for prosecutors around the country."

Or maybe we can convince this guy to lobby for us? He seems like he should be concerned about disenfranchisement.

What if we all attempted to make actual appointments with our Senators? What kind of shit would that lift off the bottom of the pot? Honestly, I understand the Senator is busy, but I only need 5 mins. The talking point? If there are unresolved suits by Jan. 6th, I would like to remind you of your Sworn Duty to object to accepting the Electoral votes still under contest.

-Hoot

I don't know what demonstration I'm going to end up at, but, I'll be the big guy sporting a tinfoil covered cowboy hat and red gloves.

On edit I left out the RICO link.

[hootinholler]

59. Hate to reply to me...

But it's really more compelling if I help you find this from the RICO link:

9-110.310 Considerations Prior to Seeking Indictment

Except as hereafter provided, a government attorney should seek approval for a RICO charge only if one or more of the following requirements is present:

1. RICO is necessary to ensure that the indictment adequately reflects the nature and extent of the criminal conduct involved in a way that prosecution only on the underlying charges would not;

2. A RICO prosecution would provide the basis for an appropriate sentence under all the circumstances of the case in a way that prosecution only on the underlying charges would not;

3. A RICO charge could combine related offenses which would otherwise have to be prosecuted separately in different jurisdictions;

4. RICO is necessary for a successful prosecution of the government's case against the defendant or a codefendant;

5. Use of RICO would provide a reasonable expectation of forfeiture which is proportionate to the underlying criminal conduct;

6. The case consists of violations of State law, but local law enforcement officials are unlikely or unable to successfully prosecute the case, in which the federal government has a significant interest;

7. The case consists of violations of State law, but involves prosecution of significant or government individuals, which may pose special problems for the local prosecutor.

The last two requirements reflect the principle that the prosecution of state crimes is primarily the responsibility of state authorities. RICO should be used to prosecute what are essentially violations of state law only if there is a compelling reason to do so. See also the Criminal Resource Manual at 2070.

I think that the RNC meets all of these, not one, but all. And most especially 6.

-Hoot

[KoKo]

12. I've hoped for a way to file a lawsuit, also. We need to sue the FTC

first. Maybe a R.I.C.O. suit against the Cables and the FTC. Hit Time Warner, Comcast and whatever. Charge them with "conspiring."

We sent thousands of e-mails to FCC last year to stop more "Media De-Regulation" and had some sucess until Congress got ahold of it and weakened the rules. With Powell and Bush there's not much hope of e-mail campaigns working when it's as serious as MSN not fairly covering Iraq, Our Economy, Congress, or this "Mis-Administration."

How does one sue the FTC? We don't seem to have lawyers who are interested in the "Consumer" anymore...:shrug:

[proudtobeadem]

29. Yes we do -Nader that's what he does

[Deb S]

14. Fairness Doctrine

Robert Kennedy Jr. was on WPR and said all the right-wing media is the result of the Fairness Doctrine being abolished in 1988 by Reagan. Before this they had to give equal time and provide controversial info to the public or lose their license. * has since reabolished it when it came up for review.

[lonestarnot]

36. fairness doctrine only protection? and if so there has to be another

basis for suit...

[proudtobeadem]

68. If you look at posts #20,21,22,23 and 24 these

talk about the fairness doctrine and some of what's been going on with it. :)

[seshers]

15. Just for some light-hearted fun

I'm too new to post, please someone post for me.

Who would you like to see in jail for 2004 election hi jinx? Why?

:evilgrin:

[IAMREALITY]

44. Welcome seshers

Answer is easy.

Anybody, regardless of party affiliation, that aided and abetted in any way the perpetration of fraudulent activity, criminal activity, or voter surpression as it relates to the election.

[hootinholler]

60. I'm on board with that! nt

[newyawker99]

62. Hi seshers!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DURHAM D]

16. My question - can we file a class action against appointed

or elected election officials in each county? or state?

[blueokie]

20. okay look at this article

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

[blueokie]

21. and this

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html


the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was assigned the responsibility to: "facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." The "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" was sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner (D-N.C.).

[blueokie]

22. or we could file FCC COmplaints

by FCC guidelines we could file complaints on all msm

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html#general

We need the following information when you file a general complaint with the FCC:

Your name, address and the telephone number or numbers involved with your complaint; (if telephone related)

A telephone number where you can be reached during the business day;

Specific information about your complaint, including the names of all companies involved with your complaint;

Names and telephone numbers of the company representatives that you contacted, the dates that you spoke with these representatives, and any other information that would help process your complaint;

If telephone related, include a copy of the bill(s) listing the disputed charges;

What type of resolution are you seeking?

[blueokie]

23. any takers??

Who wants to file FCC complaints?

[blueokie]

24. is it because I'm a newbie ...

more info:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/programming.html

just giving you the info as I research maybe someone will run with it...

[proudtobeadem]

30. Hi, blueokie!! Welcome! Give it a little time,

sometimes life gets in the way. I just got back to the computer myself. :)

[proudtobeadem]

55. Hi, I finally had a chance to read all these

articles. They're good, I didn't know all this stuff, I guess filing complaints to the FCC could be done too. I think however, we need an attorney to look into all this, I'm hoping someone finds out. :)

[SmileMaker]

56. We should file indecency complaints for lies & deception

The liars, killers and crooks that get trotted out as experts are a profanity. This could be a good moral issue for us to take to the FCC.

If we want to get biblical about it, than let's let's talk about bearing false witness.

[lonestarnot]

38. for what?

[karlrschneider]

25. Sure, it's "doable" but I'd rather sue Bush & Co for a few trillion for

malfeasance and incompetence. And fraud/lying.
:grr:

[blueokie]

26. do you think

that it might wake some people up if say 100 people file complaints against all MSM?

[proudtobeadem]

45. 100 no, 1000 or more maybe IMHO

[life_long_dem]

58. I don't think you can include MSNBC, Keith Olbermann is covering

it a little. If it is only filed against Faux News I would be happy.

P.S. Welcome to DU.

[proudtobeadem]

66. Faux and then CNN

[lonestarnot]

35. Why not? We have standing... would have to be civil ...damage is only

a theory... probably be dimissed on summary judgment or a directed verdict, but we could file. Wonder if they would report the suit? LOL:evilgrin:

[proudtobeadem]

48. I was thinking more along the lines of

false advertising, for example Faux I don't think has reported any of this at all but they say "fair and balanced"

Or we could sue for damages like you said and the
damage would be the stress I and I think we have been
under since this began. Weren't there reports of people going to psychotherapy after the selection?
I know that that is because we "lost" and that's not the media's fault, but if they reported the whole truth, people would not have suffered as much because they would feel empowered.
Speaking of which isn't the media supposed to empower people by giving them facts?
Can these be arguments???

[proudtobeadem]

28. kick

[greatscott15]

31. MSM Is usually "our friend"

I wish the MSM was covering this more. Not sure why they are not. However, I think we need to be realistic about the MSM. They are usually very good at covering our causes (with the exception of fox). Maybe they think there is nothing to this. Not that I agree if that is their assessment. Maybe they are just ready to move onto something else.

They probably didn't want Kerry to win anyway. That way it paves the way for Hillary to win in 2008.

[arcos]

32. RIGHT.........................

:eyes:

[north houston dem]

33. whatever it takes!

obstruction of justice? They are enabling treason

They do not cover the fraud - they trivialize it.
Even thought the parallels to the stolen election of 2000 are staring them in the face, they still fail to give this fair coverage.

They "own" the exit poll data. They have reported that the exit poll data is what alerted people to the possibility of fraud in the Ukraine. YET they ignore the fact that there are issues with the exit polls in their own country....WHY? Given the questions that are being asked by millions, (what was the figure? one in six Americans do not believe the election was fair?) why do they not release the data so that these questions can be resolved? What is being hidden?

For that matter can't the corporations that own them be charged with treason? Surely this is some sort of crime! :mad:

[truehawk]

50. Get the AG of NY to file it

Patacki?

[proudtobeadem]

54. Pataki is the Gov. (R) ,

He endorsed b***, I think he'd laugh at us. Hey, I PM'd you a while ago, didyou get my message?

[moesse]

64. You mean Spitzer

Elliott. He's running for Gov. in '06 but good idea. He's taken on serious big guns before.

BTW, in the late '80's Giuliani was deeply involved in a lawsuit between Fox's flagship NY station and Warner (I think) over license approvals. From a research paper I did on the subject, I recall this quote:

"New York was left to wonder at the events that had Mayor Giuliani, the former mob-busting U.S. attorney, fighting Rupert Murdoch’s battle for him.” (Neil Chenoweth).

Chenoweth's bio on Murdoch has some great Giuliani stuff in it.

[Truman01]

65. MSM has no duty to us that would be actionable....

The MSM has no duty to cover any particular story and we certainly can not force them to do so. In short, no we can't.

TC

[OnionPatch]

67. I like this idea!

It seems to me that they should be taken to account for presenting themselves to us as the news. Couldn't there at least be a case for some sort of misleading advertising or something? It really does seem like a crime, what they're doing.

[myschkin]

72. THIS IS GREAT!