Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

[Imagevision]

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. As shitacular as fox news is, I'm certainly not interested in the government telling the media...

what they can and cannot say.

[Imagevision]

2. the government telling the media...? but wasn't the Pentagon dictating what comes out of Iraq for

public consumption?

[BlooInBloo]

3. Yes, and I'm against that as well. Durr.

[sabrina 1]

25. So, you're in favor of the media telling reporters to lie with

the approval of the government, to protect big Corporations?

This was one of the most shameful decisions every made by a court. The initial decision was correct. You believe that reporters should be fired for telling the truth, for refusing to lie to protect the wrong-doing of Corporations. Okay, I get where YOU'RE coming from!

[lefthandedlefty]

31. Wasn`t Bill Clinton impeached for lying about getting a blowjob?

I guess lying about something that hurts no one is bad where as lying about somthing that hurts or kills people or destroys the economy is just okie dokie.

[Raineyb]

37. The government licenses the airwaves as it belongs to the public and is supposed to serve

the public good. Any "news" entity deliberately misleading the public should have their license revoked. At the least that local affiliate ought to be thrown out on its ear as far as broadcasting is concerned. Fiction should be saved for sitcoms and dramas.

[stuball111]

4. 1st amendment needs an overhaul...

Too much crap hides behind it, like this. It needs hate speech rules, and rules on false media reporting, like this. We all know they have been lying for years. Canada amended their free speech to exclude hate literature and audio, ie: TV, radio, recordings. It's about time this stuff became illegal, shut down the KKK and white supremacists for ever. If you build a product, and lie about the information in the product, that's illegal. Maybe somebody ought to push this Fox thing to the supreme court into the waiting arms of Sotomayor

[BlooInBloo]

5. Thanks for your help paving the road to hell.

[stuball111]

7. Just a rant..

Thanks for setting me straight... I think the first amendment is a good thing, just bugs me when it is abused for the purpose of hate mongering and lying.

[BlooInBloo]

8. :) Bugs the hell out of me too.

[unblock]

13. false advertising is already illegal

free speech in commerce is less "free" than ordinary free speech.

in this case, though, fox is probably on firm ground provided they don't *claim* to be always reporting the truth, which i'm sure they're very careful to avoid. "fair and balanced" doesn't mean honest. in fact, it rather suggests that they're offering opinions.

[ControlledDemolition]

6. Unfortunately the MSM hasn't needed a ruling from the supreme court to misinform us for a long time.

[orleans]

9. doesn't "false advertising" come into play at all? i mean, they *do*

call themselves "news"

[unblock]

14. "news" merely means "topical". it doesn't mean 100% truthful.

[NoPasaran]

26. Speaking of "news" and "topical"...

This story "Published Feb. 28, 2003". Not exactly hot off the press.

[PretzelWarrior]

10. the problem with the disintegration of the media market is.....

no matter how much of an absolute complete joke they become, they will likely have an audience for their absolutely horrific lying and distorting that is a main feature of their entire business model.

[Sanity Claws]

11. Public airwaves

Fox news is operating under a license from the FCC and thus should be operated in the public interest. Putting out false information is not in the public interest.

[melm00se]

18. Foxnews

is, for the most part, a cable outlet, not an OTA network (like CBS, ABC or NBC), so I am not sure that your argument fits here

[Sanity Claws]

21. Fox local news

In fact, the case discussed in the opening post was an ordinary broadcast of a local station, not cable.

[mmonk]

12. I'm for disclaimers for today's political shows (because they AREN'T NEWS).

Networks such as Fox should have disclaimers that they are opinion shows, not news. News indicates information, not propaganda. Thus, there is no conflict with the 1st amendment.

[unblock]

16. anyone familiar with the story behind the story knows the "news" NEVER gets it 100% right.

at best, they are scrambling to meet a deadline and only have a few hours to get the entire story.

reporters have a tough job and the nature of getting the story out asap means that they invariably get a few details wrong or leave a few key details out or even get duped into putting a bad story out entirely (getting verification reduces, but does not eliminate, this problem).

my father is a scientist and always cringes at any science story on the news, he's happy for the exposure but they always get the substance wrong. and science is, of course, the most objective and concrete story, the one most easily gotten correct if one is careful.

[mmonk]

19. There is no requirement or indication that a disclaimer requires 100%

accuracy. A disclaimer would indicate that the program is giving them politically biased programming.

[unblock]

27. i like the idea of a disclaimer

just pointing out that "news" doesn't really mean "information", and certainly not "truth", at least, from a legal perspective.
i know most people *assume* they're getting the truth from news shows, but they're invariably getting half-truths at best.

or, in foxnews's case, quarter-truths at best.

[mmonk]

28. With Fox, aren't you being a little too generous?

Maybe more like an eighth.:P

[unblock]

29. i did say "at best", not on average! :)

[mmonk]

33. Ah, I understand.

On a good day.;-)

[Raineyb]

38. There's a whole heap of difference between not getting something 100% right

and deliberately lying in order to help cover the ass of a purchaser of advertising.

[KharmaTrain]

15. If People Don't Know About Faux By Now...

Then they want to be blissfully lied to and misinformed. I knew all about Murdoch and his games when he ran the Chicago Sun-Times (before being run out of town) in the 80's.

As with others, I'm a strong defender of the First Ammendment and this does include being able to lie and be stupid. One would think that being caught in fabricating a story would hurt the bottom line...loss of credibility and viewers/readers, but the Faux viewer WANTS to be lied to, wants the world turned inside out to square with the lies and hypocrisies they themselves live.

It's just bad business...false and decpetive practices, but it's one that Faux continues to make money off of. While you can't slander or libel, there's no laws against stupidity.

[unblock]

17. note that this case is NOT about government coersion.

it's about EMPLOYER coersion. the upshot of the case is not that the government can't insist fox tell the truth, but that fox CAN require its employees to lie.

in short, if fox wants to fire you, the truth is no defense.

[MGKrebs]

20. This way, if something like the Fairness Doctrine ever is re-enacted, it wouldn't apply to Fox,

because they're legally not news anyway.

[zbdent]

22. gee ... bet you'd never hear the names of the judges who ruled FOR LYING

like you hear about the one case where Sonia Sotomayor ruled against a number of whites who were "discriminated" against ...

[Ganja Ninja]

23. Way to go FOX!

Fair and Balanced lies and distortions.

[jody]

24. "nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information" Damn I was hoping to sue and win

against the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center funded by the Joyce Foundation and Annenberg Foundation for their lying, concealing and distorting information about the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

A right that SCOTUS in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”1

[lpbk2713]

30. That was February 2003. It was a stacked deck.

When Chimpy was Prez and the Jebster was gov of Florida. Hopefully things will be different now.

[L0oniX]

32. ...about as fake as wrestling n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Let's call us a news source and slander the shit out of everybody.

[IcyPeas]

35. kicking - this is just wrong!

[spanone]

36. rupert murdoch loves to rub the 1st amendment in anyone's face who challenges him

it's the downside of freedom of speech.....freedom to lie