Fox"news" says it has constitutional right to misinform public; judge agrees

[CptStern]

it's official: fox"news" misinforms the public

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

what makes this worse is that this opens the door for other media outlets to intentionally misinform the public

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.

they should just drop the news moniker altogether and just stick with "Fox Entertainment - we lie so you dont have to"

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_...s/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Mexican Jebus would have something to say about this

 

[Acepilotf14]

It's the same with websites.
You can create a purposefully false website, and are protected under your first amendment rights, as long as it's hosted in America.

Well, god forbid you say something false about the government that's hostile.

 

[CptStern]

the internet is not a good example because laws are only relative to the jurisdiction they're hosted in

there are no laws that say media has to report the truth however fox"news" doesnt even try to hide the fact that they intentionally misinform the public

 

[Remus]

however fox"news" doesnt even try to hide the fact that they intentionally misinform the public

What's scary is that people take them seriously, and probably still will even after this... :|

 

[Krynn72]

there are no laws that say media has to report the truth however fox"news" doesnt even try to hide the fact that they intentionally misinform the public

Would you rather they did?

 

[Shyam]

Would you rather they did?

I want the media to give it a good shot. Bias is part of Human nature, the nationality,race and religion of your upbringing or surroundings will influence how you percieve news. but the trick is to remove the bias as much as possible.

This ruling just sets a precedent now. Other news organisation can point to this case and say, well it's case law now we can misinform the public.

You know what is funny ? people saying Fox News is legit and calling out Al Jazeera. They say that news agency is supportive of terrorism. I have watched Al Jazeera over the few days, and even though they do have an anti American bias, they actually make an effort to at least try and be unbiased and I will say it here and now, Al Jazeera is has less bullsh** than fox news.

Just made me laugh how Fox commentators have called out Al Jazeera as being un biased.

 

[Sparta]

Al-Jazeera English actually has some pretty good reporting.

 

[CptStern]

Would you rather they did?

it wouldnt make a difference

Fox News rates as the United States' most watched cable news network, ahead of CNN and MSNBC

also there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. I'd expect a news outlet to do more of the former rather than the latter

 

[VictimOfScience]

Agreed. When they (or any other news personality) takes a stand on an issue saying it is good or bad, this is problematic. The idea is to report the facts of what happened. Tell us what is going on and how it will affect us, NOT that it is a terrible idea or that it is the best idea to come out of the government ever. If I wanted opinions, I would watch The Late Show or something like that. I have a real problem that they call themselves "News" though, giving themselves credibility with many people just by doing so. It should really be called Fox Variety Show because it is just a mess of characters playing roles and being controlled by someone...but who is pulling the ultimate strings???

Nice ****ing courts that use the Constitution to justify the dissemination of misinformation to the American people. Our country is so ****ed up.

 

[<RJMC>]

solution:

sue them for false advertising

 

[Solaris]

In the UK you can't do this, even on a blog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594097.stm

Spectator columnist Rod Liddle has become the first blogger to be censured by the Press Complaints Commission.
On the Spectator's website, Mr Liddle wrote that the "overwhelming majority" of London's violent crime was carried out by young, African-Caribbean men.
But the PCC ruled the former BBC Radio 4 Today editor's words breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of its code.
It said the "significant ruling" showed publications' websites would be held to the same standards as print editions.

 

[lord_raken]

In the UK you can't do this, even on a blog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594097.stm

Wow. That's awful.

Yes the information was false (most likely, I don't know), but preventing someone from stating their opinion? That is the worse of the two offenses.

Seriously, if our government tried to do that to us.... they wouldn't even be able to get a job as a crossing guard by the time we were done with them. (hyperbole I know)
:sniper:

 

[Acepilotf14]

it wouldnt make a difference




also there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. I'd expect a news outlet to do more of the former rather than the latter

I bet people just forget to turn the channel after American Idol, and they count that as ratings.

 

[Shakermaker]

Krynn is the voice of reason in this thread. How would you enforce media organizations to truthfully report the news? Plus who would be the censor? Some truths are very relative.

 

[Absinthe]

I thought he was referring to how Fox didn't even bother trying to cover up that they're liars.

 

[Noodle]

I may not like it, but it is free speech in this case. So long as it doesn't violate any of the laws on libel and slander.

 

[Shakermaker]

I thought he was referring to how Fox didn't even bother trying to cover up that they're liars.

Hmmm, after re-reading what he wrote I'd have to say you're probably right. My point still stands though. Things might get very icky if there was a governmental organization telling the media what is right and what is wrong.

 

[CptStern]

I thought he was referring to how Fox didn't even bother trying to cover up that they're liars.

this


as was already noted it's not illegal to misrepresent the truth . their only obligation to the truth is to themselves (journalistic integrity) and their readers

Things might get very icky if there was a governmental organization telling the media what is right and what is wrong.

there are broadcast regulations in most countries. so yes governments already have a say in what media broadcasts

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/statutes-lois.htm

 

[Solaris]

Wow. That's awful.

Yes the information was false (most likely, I don't know), but preventing someone from stating their opinion? That is the worse of the two offenses.

Seriously, if our government tried to do that to us.... they wouldn't even be able to get a job as a crossing guard by the time we were done with them. (hyperbole I know)
:sniper:

You see I disagree. Why should it be wrong to say "Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990", becuase if you wrote that in a blog, you'd get sued for libel. But you think it's acceptable to say "The vast majority of crime in London is done by black people" when it isn't?

Both are wrong. It should be illegal for the media to report falsities as fact.

 

[Absinthe]

We live in an age where mass media is heavily ingrained in our culture and can have far-reaching influence and consequences for society. While a part of me cringes at the idea of having government regulation decide what's truth and what isn't, I don't think it's acceptable to allow news organizations to disseminate blatant falsehoods and misinformation. When you have that much power, you need to show some responsibility. Your actions affect everybody else in the country.

It's not like hotheaded simpletons like Glenn Beck or O'Reilly would lose their shows. Editorial content is free to contain whatever it wants. But when you're injecting lies and purposeful distortions into your actual newscast, that's a different matter.

I wouldn't be averse to the idea of a higher authority clamping down on this kind of shit.

 

[CptStern]

this was the norm before Reagan de-regulated media in the early 80's. Up until then news reports could only have a certain percentage of editorlized content.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

 

[Shakermaker]

there are broadcast regulations in most countries. so yes governments already have a say in what media broadcasts

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/statutes-lois.htm

Organizations like the CRTC only look at stuff like ownership and the percentage of foreign made programming versus home made. Content is usually handled by independent non-governmental councils like the CBSC. Media organizations can chose to accept their jurisdiction but in actuality their powers to tend to be limited.

 

[CptStern]

you're right in the case of the crtc my mistake

 

[VictimOfScience]

this was the norm before Reagan de-regulated media in the early 80's. Up until then news reports could only have a certain percentage of editorlized content.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Ah, the good old days. Effing Ronnie.

 

[Shakermaker]

About the opening post by the way. My bullshit detector is making some strange noises. The story on the blog is dated "03/09/10", yet it is based on another story dated "Feb. 28, 2003". Jane Akre herself gets about 15.000 hits on Google, which isn't that much, considering this would have been quite a big story seven years ago. Most of the sources in favor of Akre are sites like ThirdWorldTraveler.net or OrganicFood.org. That in itself doesn't prove anything but I found it telling anyway. Also, this sketchy web page offers an interesting view against the story in the opening post. It suggests that Akre's reporting wasn't true, or at least more activist than journalistic in the first place.

 

[Krynn72]

which isn't that much, considering this would have been quite a big story seven years ago.

Not if FOX has anything to say about it! HO HO!

it wouldnt make a difference

I think it would. If they hid the fact that they're lying sacks of crap, it would be hard for even intelligent people to see through the bullshit. I'd rather have most people believing their lies, rather than all of us.

 

[VirusType2]

If you are going to do story-telling, then you cannot pose it as important factual news. Keep in mind that the television and radio are also used for emergency broadcasting.

Surely some of you heard the story where people killed themselves when they tuned in to a radio show and thought the end of the world was upon them - but it was a story being read over the radio.

AT LEAST BEFORE AND AFTER THE BROADCAST, AND AFTER COMMERCIAL BREAKS, IT SHOULD SAY "THESE ARE THE VIEWS OF FOX NEWS CORPORATION." Anyone gripping the edge of their seat over it would be tuned in long enough and would eventually find out they can relax their sphincter.

You commonly see the opposite, where a media company wants to distance itself and protect itself from the views of someone on their show/film. They put a disclaimer "THE VIEWS OF THIS ****ING IDIOT DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF [whomever]..

I don't see why should it be any different. I see it as more important because - on one hand - it's just a matter of holding a clean public image, but FOX purposefully spreading misinformation is dangerous. We have politicians getting their fuel lines tampered with because they are getting health coverage! Not only that but panic and injustice can easily develop. Use your imagination.


And some say video games should be banned because people can't tell what's real or not. Unlike FOX news, It's not even trying to convince you it's real. IT'S A VIDEO GAME; THE PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN REAL. They're sprites and polygons. I laughed and smiled at the 'Rape video game', and fully support freedom of expression - when not trying to pose as important national and world news.

 

[Shakermaker]

Not if FOX has anything to say about it! HO HO!

To be honest that thought crossed my mind as well. I really don't know who to believe in this case.

 

[Shyam]

Al-Jazeera English actually has some pretty good reporting.

Also they have hot female presenters. Meanwhile Fox have blonds who act dumb. Yes I don't believe Gretchen is dumb. Jon called that out months ago

 

[CptStern]

Not if FOX has anything to say about it! HO HO!



I think it would. If they hid the fact that they're lying sacks of crap, it would be hard for even intelligent people to see through the bullshit. I'd rather have most people believing their lies, rather than all of us.

ya but intelligent people didnt need this incident to convince them that fox is full of shit

 

[Krynn72]

Also they have hot female presenters. Meanwhile Fox have blonds who act dumb. Yes I don't believe Gretchen is dumb. Jon called that out months ago

I really wish there were more hot chicks on the news. They all seem to have disappeared completely off the air. They were the main reason why I started watching the news.

ya but intelligent people didnt need this incident to convince them that fox is full of shit

True enough.

 

[VictimOfScience]

ya but intelligent people didnt need this incident to convince them that fox is full of shit

Hahaha! Too true. There was that other story recently where the Daily Show pointed out the edited footage of what I think was a Tea Party rally in Washington where Fox News or Glenn Beck used footage from some totally different and more well-attended event to show how big the turnout was. Hilarious and completely ****ing asinine. :E

 

[VirusType2]

People who don't use the internet aren't necessarily stupid. Imagine doctors and teachers and other intelligent people who turn on the TV when they get home from work. I guess you could call it casual. Not to say they aren't voters who aren't fierce about their own opinions, but it's all too easy to pump falsehoods into naive people who only get their news from major national media outlets. And why would they have any reason to distrust these networks - they have slogans like "The Most Trusted News Network", "The News Source The World Counts On.", and "Fair And Balanced."

 

[unozero]

Al-Jazeera English actually has some pretty good reporting.

blatantly anti Semitic and keep on blabbering about the post america world.




CNN for me.

 

[CptStern]

Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English are not the same thing

 

[Noodle]

I can see the false advertising angle as far as calling it "news", but no matter how much anyone hates Fox, the government forcing broadcast regulations on the amount of editorial content is overkill. The only laws that really should be there are in regard to obscenity. And no, Fox is not an obscenity just because you disagree with their opinions.

We have enough private media watchdog groups anyway.

 

[CptStern]

that's the point. the news shouldnt be based on opnions. that's not what it was like before deregulation. before deregulation advertisers were not allowed to influence editorial content

 

[Top Secret]

Wow. That's awful.

Yes the information was false (most likely, I don't know), but preventing someone from stating their opinion? That is the worse of the two offenses

He wasn't stating his opinion. He was stating FALSE information.

*Edit*

I just want to clarify:

Even though I think Fox are scum, I believe the first amendment protects them in this case.

 

[Krynn72]

I dont think anyone here has suggested that they should be censored. I believe the point of the thread was to show that Fox has all but admitted to purposely lying during their broadcasts.