It's totally legal for Fox to knowingly lie on air

[FireNexus]

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog ... ublic.html

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. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

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.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

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.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Fantastic. Goodbye to any semblance of journalistic integrity in the US! Hopefully congress will pass a law that actually makes this illegal.

[AMT]

I wonder why it took so long for someone to say something about this, since the actual reversal seemed to occur back in 2003

[General Zod]

I think the important tacitly unspoken thing here is that Fox is basically admitting they lie.

edit: 2003? Shit. Why did I not catch that?

[AMT]

I think the important tacitly unspoken thing here is that Fox is basically admitting they lie.

Perhaps. But the only issue is that people will see the 2003 appeal as well as the original 2000 date and go "that was almost a decade ago. They aren't like that now."


That and the fact no one had the balls to ever show this when it was relevant.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I remember when this first happened in 2003. Fortunately, Fox seems to be the only major perpetrator (because anyone who watches it is too stupid to notice, or care, really). The rest of the American media has been pretty good at remaining ethical (I won't say the quality hasn't declined, but I would point at other issues than this ruling for that). I mean, Dan Rather was fired in 2005 for lying, even though it was arguable whether it was even his fault (more likely he just never bothered to factcheck). So, yeah, it's not illegal, but that doesn't mean that most media organizations won't self-police.

(Besides, even though the ruling was only in the past few years, when did anyone think it actually WAS illegal?)

[SCRawl]

Yeah, I also remember this case. Not very shocking, when you consider who's involved.

I wonder, though: does Fox really have any credibility outside of its sycophants? All a news agency (or news person, for that matter) ever really has going for it is its credibility, and for such an entity to argue that it has the fundamental right to broadcast lies and call it "news", that can't be good for one's reputation.

[Patrick Degan]

Yeah, I also remember this case. Not very shocking, when you consider who's involved.

I wonder, though: does Fox really have any credibility outside of its sycophants? All a news agency (or news person, for that matter) ever really has going for it is its credibility, and for such an entity to argue that it has the fundamental right to broadcast lies and call it "news", that can't be good for one's reputation.

Credibility? FoxNoise is at the point where there should be a law mandating that all their "news" and op-ed programmes be underscored by a laugh-track.

[SCRawl]

Yeah, I also remember this case. Not very shocking, when you consider who's involved.

I wonder, though: does Fox really have any credibility outside of its sycophants? All a news agency (or news person, for that matter) ever really has going for it is its credibility, and for such an entity to argue that it has the fundamental right to broadcast lies and call it "news", that can't be good for one's reputation.

Credibility? FoxNoise is at the point where there should be a law mandating that all their "news" and op-ed programmes be underscored by a laugh-track.

That's how I see it, too, but I wonder about those who don't lean so far to the left as this group. I mean, if one of the "mindless middle" (or, to be nicer about it, let's say someone without serious political affiliations) wants to see what's going on in the world, is Fox a serious avenue for finding out about current events? Are their news people regarded anywhere as being solid journalists? (I suppose that in that rotten barrel there might be some untainted apples, though of course they carry the stink of their neighbours wherever they go.)

To truncate the question a bit, is there an audience for Fox News that isn't made up of die-hard right-wingers, and among the fraternity of journalists are they regarded with anything better than scorn?

[Darth Wong]

The fact that FOX does this is not surprising at all, given some of the outrageous things they've done on air. The annoying thing is that so many people belong to the Mindless Middle and assume that FOX is just one side of a balanced equation. So what do they do? Naturally, they assume that there must be a liberal counterpart to FOX, and it seems that everyone has decided MSNBC is that counterpart. Even Jon Stewart routinely tries to make this connection on his show.

The problem is that MSNBC is not that counterpart. They do not have a history of distorting facts the way FOX does. Frankly, the First Amendment was never meant to apply to deception. That's why fraud is still illegal, at least for now.

[General Zod]

The fact that FOX does this is not surprising at all, given some of the outrageous things they've done on air. The annoying thing is that so many people belong to the Mindless Middle and assume that FOX is just one side of a balanced equation. So what do they do? Naturally, they assume that there must be a liberal counterpart to FOX, and it seems that everyone has decided MSNBC is that counterpart. Even Jon Stewart routinely tries to make this connection on his show.

The problem is that MSNBC is not that counterpart. They do not have a history of distorting facts the way FOX does. Frankly, the First Amendment was never meant to apply to deception. That's why fraud is still illegal, at least for now.

MSNBC? I thought all the tards had decided CNN was Fox Noise's liberal counterpart.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that FOX does this is not surprising at all, given some of the outrageous things they've done on air. The annoying thing is that so many people belong to the Mindless Middle and assume that FOX is just one side of a balanced equation. So what do they do? Naturally, they assume that there must be a liberal counterpart to FOX, and it seems that everyone has decided MSNBC is that counterpart. Even Jon Stewart routinely tries to make this connection on his show.

The problem is that MSNBC is not that counterpart. They do not have a history of distorting facts the way FOX does. Frankly, the First Amendment was never meant to apply to deception. That's why fraud is still illegal, at least for now.

MSNBC? I thought all the tards had decided CNN was Fox Noise's liberal counterpart.

CNN has bent over backwards to suck conservative cock. They actually gave that idiot fat-headed knuckle-dragging mouth-breather fundie fucktard shit-spewing retrograde fanatic Glenn Beck a national TV show before FOXNews did, for fuck's sake. The only difference between CNN and FOXNews is that CNN still has some kind of journalistic standards, whereas FOXNews does not. MSNBC, on the other hand, is not working their asses off to build conservative cred, so they come off as more liberal than CNN.

[Davey]

Fantastic. Goodbye to any semblance of journalistic integrity in the US! Hopefully congress will pass a law that actually makes this illegal.

While that'd be nice, even if it *did* stand, I have a feeling someone would challenge its constitutionality, and they'd have a pretty good chance of winning, given the way the courts are and how the constitution is. The First Amendment may not apply to deception, but hey, lawyers could always argue that it's Fox's right to put their own spin on current events. Or if worse comes to worst, I'm guessing they could just say it was their journalists' fault for not doing all their homework, write it off as employee incompetence, and totally get away with it.

[weemadando]

It's nothing really worse that what was brought out of the closet by OutFoxed in their doco.

I mean, after all - if having a member of the extended-Bush clan on your election night team, without disclosing who he actually is, calling the election for Bush isn't a clear sign of bias then I'm not sure where to start.

We could start with the lying, but that just seems a better place to finish.

[Keevan_Colton]

This has been posted long ago here. I know since I posted it...

Fox have argued successfully that they have a first amendment right to lie in the news. After all, as a legal person they're afforded the full protection of the constitution of the United States...and just imagine if people had to tell the truth! Imagine the anarchy that might ensue!

Anyway, this is seriously old news and nothing at all legally has happened to change it since then.

[Patrick Degan]

Wonder if you could do 'em under the Truth in Advertising laws...?

[Bellator]

The fact that FOX does this is not surprising at all, given some of the outrageous things they've done on air. The annoying thing is that so many people belong to the Mindless Middle and assume that FOX is just one side of a balanced equation. So what do they do? Naturally, they assume that there must be a liberal counterpart to FOX, and it seems that everyone has decided MSNBC is that counterpart. Even Jon Stewart routinely tries to make this connection on his show.

The problem is that MSNBC is not that counterpart. They do not have a history of distorting facts the way FOX does. Frankly, the First Amendment was never meant to apply to deception. That's why fraud is still illegal, at least for now.

MSNBC may not systematically distort facts like Fox does, it is most certainly the anti-Fox when it comes to bias. As much as I enjoy watching MSNBC, and loath watching Fox, it's quite obvious there is a strong liberal bias in MSNBC's choice of topics and the coverage thereof. Doubly so for their non-news programs (Olbermann, Maddow, etc).

[Simon_Jester]

Fantastic. Goodbye to any semblance of journalistic integrity in the US! Hopefully congress will pass a law that actually makes this illegal.

While that'd be nice, even if it *did* stand, I have a feeling someone would challenge its constitutionality, and they'd have a pretty good chance of winning, given the way the courts are and how the constitution is. The First Amendment may not apply to deception, but hey, lawyers could always argue that it's Fox's right to put their own spin on current events. Or if worse comes to worst, I'm guessing they could just say it was their journalists' fault for not doing all their homework, write it off as employee incompetence, and totally get away with it.

As to the first: in some cases a lie on the air can be explained as an attempt to present a different interpretation of events. In others, as when FOX falsely claims that the current governor of South Carolina is a Democrat, not so much.

As to the second, if FOX had to argue in court that their reporters don't do their homework, that would be worth something too. Much as it would be nice if Bill O'Reilly actually got sued for slandering people on the air and his lawyer had to break out the "not guilty by reason of insanity, my client is a pathological liar" defense.
______

MSNBC may not systematically distort facts like Fox does, it is most certainly the anti-Fox when it comes to bias. As much as I enjoy watching MSNBC, and loath watching Fox, it's quite obvious there is a strong liberal bias in MSNBC's choice of topics and the coverage thereof. Doubly so for their non-news programs (Olbermann, Maddow, etc).

But that's not the same thing.

A company that makes stuff up in their news broadcasts is not and can never be the equivalent of one that doesn't. Even if both companies are biased in their coverage, there's still that critical 'makes stuff up' barrier between them.

On top of that, it really doesn't matter what the network airs as non-news coverage. That may tell you something about the network executives, but it doesn't tell you much about the fundamental honesty of the news coverage.

[Mayabird]

It's not just distorting facts. They just don't give a shit at all about getting the facts straight. This even includes the little local stations and the freaking sports pages. Scores for games are about the easiest and most basic fact that journalists can do, something that even retarded people can get right, and FOX still manages to fuck them up on a regular basis. I've seen articles with easy-to-spot contradictions in the text, like saying some kid was sixteen and five years ago he when he was twelve he...and the kid wasn't actually sixteen either. It's one thing for the writer to get it wrong but it also has to get past editors and they just let the stupidity slide right by.

I am surprised that no enterprising journalism student has made a project out of getting themselves into some FOX station and releasing completely fabricated stories just to see if they could get away with it. Because it would be easy.

[AMT]

It's not just distorting facts. They just don't give a shit at all about getting the facts straight. This even includes the little local stations and the freaking sports pages. Scores for games are about the easiest and most basic fact that journalists can do, something that even retarded people can get right, and FOX still manages to fuck them up on a regular basis. I've seen articles with easy-to-spot contradictions in the text, like saying some kid was sixteen and five years ago he when he was twelve he...and the kid wasn't actually sixteen either. It's one thing for the writer to get it wrong but it also has to get past editors and they just let the stupidity slide right by.

I am surprised that no enterprising journalism student has made a project out of getting themselves into some FOX station and releasing completely fabricated stories just to see if they could get away with it. Because it would be easy.

Umm... the only issue with that is that most local FOX stations are actually two channels (and two affiliates) in one, and share stories. This is cause Fox news is on at 10 and the other affiliates are on at 11. So... yeah, can't really blame Fox news for that one.

[Darth Wong]

MSNBC may not systematically distort facts like Fox does, it is most certainly the anti-Fox when it comes to bias.

This sentence is pure nonsense. If party A distorts facts for its bias while party B does not, then party A's bias is unquestionably worse than party B's bias.

How do you define "bias"? I would be very curious, since your statement above conforms to no reasonable definition of "bias" that I can imagine. It's like saying "Mr. Smith has a long history of murder and aggravated assault while Mr Jones does not, but they are both equally violent".

[Bellator]

MSNBC may not systematically distort facts like Fox does, it is most certainly the anti-Fox when it comes to bias.

This sentence is pure nonsense. If party A distorts facts for its bias while party B does not, then party A's bias is unquestionably worse than party B's bias.

How do you define "bias"? I would be very curious, since your statement above conforms to no reasonable definition of "bias" that I can imagine. It's like saying "Mr. Smith has a long history of murder and aggravated assault while Mr Jones does not, but they are both equally violent".

Good job of stopping to read after the first line, and ignoring the rest of the post.

As I said, bias in topic selection (what to cover and what not) and in from what viewpoint they are discussing said topic. Especially on the opinion shows. Don't tell me you've never noticed it. Hell, it's the main reason I watch it.

It's no coincidence the worst person in the world title moves between Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck.

[The Spartan]

So, just how frequently do left-wing commentators say things as horrible as that group of douchecocks? Or so openly distort the truth or even outright lie?

[Darth Wong]

Good job of stopping to read after the first line, and ignoring the rest of the post.

Nothing in the rest of your post changes my point, moron.

As I said, bias in topic selection (what to cover and what not) and in from what viewpoint they are discussing said topic. Especially on the opinion shows. Don't tell me you've never noticed it. Hell, it's the main reason I watch it.

Yet again you demonstrate your own stupidity. That utterly fails to refute the point, which is that you can't equate things like "bias in topic selection" with outright lying.

It's no coincidence the worst person in the world title moves between Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck.

Show why that proves dishonesty.

[Davis 51]

It's no coincidence the worst person in the world title moves between Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck.

So...calling out douchebags on their bullshit indicates a "bias" against...what exactly? Dishonesty?

Edit: fixed quote tags.

[Patrick Degan]

It's no coincidence the worst person in the world title moves between Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck.

Outright liars who engage in slander and stoke the fires of extremism with their every broadcast. I'd say there's reason that title shifts primarily between those three most of the time.