Is it illegal for the News Media to lie to its public, or is it just immoral?

[FrenchieCat]

And if it isn't illegal, why isn't it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Just immoral.

Why? First amendment.

[FrenchieCat]

2. First amendment says the press can lie and that's ok?

Wow!

Why would that work in that way?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Yes.

You, like every other human being, lies on occasion.

Do you go to prison for it? No? That's because it's legal.

[Tsiyu]

23. Well, lying under oath could land you in prison,

and a Pharm co's advertising that its product "will lower your weight from three hundred to ninety pounds in five days or less" might not get anyone a prison sentence, but it will have to stop lying, as that type of false advertising (lying) is illegal.

There are a few areas where lying is illegal.



Edit to add: Google perjury if you don't believe me

[michreject]

10. Laws don't tell what we can do

they tell us what we can't do. If it's not prohibited, we are left to our own sense of ethics.

[RandomThoughts]

13. becuase profit motive without moral component builds many systems.

So things like weather to lie or tell the truth are not part of that system.

However they can be part of mostly good people in that system, the system itself has no moral component, so people have to constently go against that system to be honest. Since without moral component it protects itself by trying to hold back anything with a moral component.

It would be better to have some systems in place to counter the no moral component system, making it easier and less stressful for people to act in ways of justice, honor and truth.

[JuniperLea]

3. Remember the Faux Gnus court case?

They can say whatever they want... corporations have free speech... forcing them to fact check or tell the truth is a no no.

[arcane1]

11. Yep, the supreme court said it's a-ok n/t

[Ian David]

4. Not only is it legal, but they can fire you for refusing to lie.

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x38895

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/judiciary/60425-fox-sues-wins-right-lie-news-broadcasts-8.html

[leftynyc]

5. A case went all the way to the

Supreme Court on that question. Fox news was told it could lie with impunity. I guess it's first ammendment but I'd have to look it up.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I guess just immoral (if that) the courts said Faux had no obligation to the truth

a few months back, it seems. That might have only applied due to them not utilizing the airwaves though.

[DJ13]

7. The Media Can Legally Lie

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

[Writer]

14. This is an Appellate Court case... why didn't it reach the SCOTUS? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

17. Thanks for the info!

[DJ13]

18. You're welcome Frenchie Cat

:hi:

[avaistheone1]

20. I was just going to post this case. You beat me to it and...

This case was a Project Censored top story in 2005. This linked article also contains a good analysis of the legal case and aftermath.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

[libodem]

9. Should be

I'm with you, on this. I don't think it is illegal though. Seems like there was a Faux deal, and the ruling was in favor of them being able to lie with impunity.

[Writer]

12. Hi, Frenchie. This is a very good question.

It depends on how you look at this. If you're referring to political speech and politicians, then you're in an area of speech that is very protected under the First Amendment. If a false fact (aka a lie) is stated by a news publication about a public official, that public official could create a libel suit against the publication. However, the public official would have to prove a very high threshold of malice on the part of the publication to prove their case. Nearly all public officials just end up skipping it.

Another thing to consider is that the SCOTUS has in the past ruled that the First Amendment does not grant a special speech status to the press (as opposed to the general public), so no state or federal government can make special rules for press speech. This is a problem for those of us who aspire for progressive values for our press, because no law (under current precedent) can be made to control the manner through which the press reports.

Since 1908, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has created a set of guidelines for reporters. You can read them here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. The issue here is that the SPJ is not a punitive body, so if a press organization strays from these ethics, then the SPJ typically takes no action. Many reporters today believe that the presence of politicized journalism, for instance, isn't as damaging in the past because of the number of choices available in the so-called "marketplace of ideas."


That's the shortest answer I could possibly conceive at the moment.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Thanks!

That's appreciated! :hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. It's legal, but immoral. It's legal mainly because the Fourth Estate has been

deregulated to the point that the FCC has been rendered useless.

The media is now controlled by 5 conglomerates and there is virtually no oversight.

First Amendment protects the "freedom" of the press. It it is very difficult to sue the media. Public figures have the toughest time winning libel or slander cases.

But when the media is deregulated to the extent that it is, virtually anything goes, lies and all. And there's never any accountability.

Has Judith Miller and Matt Cooper ever been brought to justice?

Does Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck ever pay for their incendiary rhetoric?

[housewolf]

19. Don't we still have libel laws? and fraud laws?

and laws about other unproven claims?

[alp227]

21. Slander and libel are not protected under the 1st Amendment.

Yet the Bush Administration got away with piping lies to the media to regurgitate.

Fox News and right-wing talk radio get away with trash talking Democrats and the Obama administration every day, almost.

It's not just immoral to broadcast BS as fact, it can also have legal implications. Most lawsuits against the media are usually celebrity lawsuits against tabloids such as Roman Polanski's against Vanity Fair. I don't know if any members of the US Congress have ever sued the news media.

[damntexdem]

22. Freedom of the press -- that HAS TO include freedom to lie.

Just as freedom of religion has to include freedom to blaspheme.

In both cases, not allowing such freedom would mean cases brought because those with other views claimed press lying or religious blaspheming.

It's a shame, but even Faux News has to be allowed to be nothing but a lie.

[Tsiyu]

24. It was illegal for Clinton which was supposed to tell us he was immoral

but apparently the same media - that hounded him about his lies - don't have any trouble spewing out gazillions of lies of their own. And still claim moral superiority...:wtf:

It's all about the $$$$ Baby

If you look at newsreaders (and that's all the hell they are) as merely highly polished salesmen and saleswomen hacking for their Corporate bosses, you won't be bothered by them so much, because you will turn them off.


You wouldn't let the saleswoman at the Clinique counter hang out at your house all day trying to sell you lipgloss, would you? You wouldn't let Joe Blow at the local Ford dealership sit in your livingroom and try to sell you a Ranger all day, would you? Or let a Jehovah's witness in the front door and lead him to a seat at the dining room table to read from The Watchtower 24/7, would you?

Turning on any corporate news - and that includes NPR these days, sadly - is exactly like letting the corporate saleswhores just hang out at your house. Which is why their lies are so infuriating.

Well, I just turned the crap off, don't have a TV anymore and try to listen to totally local news and get the rest from leads on DU.


They can lie, lie, lie all day and my blood pressure doesn't even notice...



Edit because: I am so frickin loopy after working 70 hours this week, it should be illegal for me to be typing....and thinking on top of that... Hell's Bells