Moveon.org filed a complaint with the FTC against Fox News

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2004-08-30 12:28am

--Get the scoop here.
-So what does everyone think about this move? Was it a good idea since Faux News is EVIL and needs to be stopped? Was it a bad since preventing Fox News from saying whatever it wants whenever it wants whereever it want however it wants would infringe on their free speech rights?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-30 12:30am

"Fair and Balanced" definitely violates truth in advertising laws.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-30 12:34am

Interesting.

I hope this works well.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-30 12:34am

Россия.

All hail our new Slavic overlords!

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-30 12:35am

MKSheppard wrote:Россия.

All hail our new Slavic overlords!

Ha!

I knew I wasn't the only one seeing that.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-08-30 12:38am

What a load of BS. May they fail miserably.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-30 12:39am

Nathan F wrote:What a load of BS. May they fail miserably.

Why, it certainly does seem to violate trade description laws at least as they stand in the UK, I'm not familiar with the US ones.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-30 12:43am

many people actually believe it's fair and balanced, so the false advertising must be working.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-08-30 12:54am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Nathan F wrote:What a load of BS. May they fail miserably.
Why, it certainly does seem to violate trade description laws at least as they stand in the UK, I'm not familiar with the US ones.

When they say "Fair and Balanced", as long as they give a differing viewpoint, then they are being fair. Anyways, much of the stuff that falls under what wouldn't be "Fair and Balanced" are news commentary shows, stuff that is assumed to not be fair and balanced, sort of like the opinion page of the local paper.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-30 01:02am

Remember though, Fox have been good enough to sue others for using the term fair and ballanced...so, frankly since they feel it's so much theirs they ought to be able to prove legally they deserve it

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-30 01:02am

Probably nothing will come of this, it's difficult to prove something like this in legal language.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-30 01:36am

Hopefully, Fox News will go bankrupt trying to defend the shitty little lying tag line they feel so offended by when someone else uses it, and even though they win they'll still go out of business. Realistically, i doubt there is that much justice in this world.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-30 01:42am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Hopefully, Fox News will go bankrupt trying to defend the shitty little lying tag line they feel so offended by when someone else uses it, and even though they win they'll still go out of business. Realistically, i doubt there is that much justice in this world.

I don't think FOX can go bankrupt that easily. They have more money than Satan's accountants.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-30 01:43am

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Hopefully, Fox News will go bankrupt trying to defend the shitty little lying tag line they feel so offended by when someone else uses it, and even though they win they'll still go out of business. Realistically, i doubt there is that much justice in this world.

Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-08-30 01:51am

"Fair" and "Balanced" are incredibly subjective terms. How, pray tell, will you prove in court that they AREN'T fair and balanced?

Note that "I don't like what they say!" doesn't constitute proof.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-30 01:58am

SPOOFE wrote:"Fair" and "Balanced" are incredibly subjective terms. How, pray tell, will you prove in court that they AREN'T fair and balanced?

By adding up the amount of time given to representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties and finding that the ratio is obscenely high (greater than 5 to 1 if I recall correctly from the last time someone actually tried monitoring it). That doesn't seem too difficult.

Note that "I don't like what they say!" doesn't constitute proof.

See above.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-08-30 03:09am

I say that it's a bad idea, because even if they have a point, it's going to make them look like a bunch of whiners.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-30 01:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:"Fair" and "Balanced" are incredibly subjective terms. How, pray tell, will you prove in court that they AREN'T fair and balanced?
By adding up the amount of time given to representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties and finding that the ratio is obscenely high (greater than 5 to 1 if I recall correctly from the last time someone actually tried monitoring it). That doesn't seem too difficult.
Note that "I don't like what they say!" doesn't constitute proof.
See above.

While that may be true Mike FOX only has to claim that they are presenting both sides of the argument, which they are, even if the conservative viewpoint is shared by more of their correspondants.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-30 01:57pm

Talon Karrde wrote:While that may be true Mike FOX only has to claim that they are presenting both sides of the argument, which they are, even if the conservative viewpoint is shared by more of their correspondants.

I suggest you look up "balanced" in the dictionary. It does not mean "a little bit of A and a shitload of B".

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-30 02:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:While that may be true Mike FOX only has to claim that they are presenting both sides of the argument, which they are, even if the conservative viewpoint is shared by more of their correspondants.
I suggest you look up "balanced" in the dictionary. It does not mean "a little bit of A and a shitload of B".

No, I realize that, but in court I'm thinking they would use their own definition and most likely, being who they are, get away with it.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-08-30 02:25pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:While that may be true Mike FOX only has to claim that they are presenting both sides of the argument, which they are, even if the conservative viewpoint is shared by more of their correspondants.
I suggest you look up "balanced" in the dictionary. It does not mean "a little bit of A and a shitload of B".
No, I realize that, but in court I'm thinking they would use their own definition and most likely, being who they are, get away with it.

I hate to tell you this, but in any matter of law, the courts don't let the defendents decide what definitions are applicable to the case before the bar.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-30 05:28pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I suggest you look up "balanced" in the dictionary. It does not mean "a little bit of A and a shitload of B".
No, I realize that, but in court I'm thinking they would use their own definition and most likely, being who they are, get away with it.
I hate to tell you this, but in any matter of law, the courts don't let the defendents decide what definitions are applicable to the case before the bar.

::Sigh:: Let's try a different approach then. Do you really think this lawsuit will succeed?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Moveon.org filed a complaint with the FTC against Fox News

Good idea or bad idea?

Moveon.org filed a complaint with the FTC against Fox News