Fox Television Defends Its Right to Lie

[subgenius]

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

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.
...
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.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

But then what would you expect from the "liberal" media?:rolleyes:

[Penrich]

Originally posted by subgenius
Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock,


But then what would you expect from the liberal media?

Rupert Murdoch... liberal media... does not compute. The media is only as liberal as the big fat capitalist companies running it. They just feed us what we want to hear. That is what sells papers, advertising slots etc. Obviously, we want to be lied to. Its SO much nicer than the truth...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Penrich


Rupert Murdoch... liberal media... does not compute. The media is only as liberal as the big fat capitalist companies running it. They just feed us what we want to hear. That is what sells papers, advertising slots etc. Obviously, we want to be lied to. Its SO much nicer than the truth...
It was meant to be sarcastic. I'm going to add a smilie to try and convey that thought.

[Supercharts]

Zenger et al.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1990/ch1_p10.htm

[fidiot]

Originally posted by subgenius
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.

I don't even know what to say. Seriously. :confused:

[Frank Newgent]

Guess that Foxhole News owes one to Larry Flynt (http://www.gigalaw.com/library/hustler-falwell-1988-02-24-p2.html).

[Frank Newgent]

On the inside front cover of a 1983 issue of Hustler, was what appeared to be an advertisement for Campari Liqueur with the headline: "Jerry Falwell Talks About His First Time" followed by an interview, excerpted below...


FALWELL: My first time was in an outhouse outside Lynchburg, Virginia.
INTERVIEWER: I see. You must tell me about it.
FALWELL: I never really expected to make it with Mom, but then after she showed all the other guys in town such a good time, I figured, "What the hell!"
INTERVIEWER: Go on.
FALWELL: Well, we were drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari, ginger ale and soda -- that's called a Fire and Brimstone -- at the time....
INTERVIEWER: Did you ever try it again?
FALWELL: Sure...lots of times. But not in the outhouse....
INTERVIEWER: We meant the Campari.
FALWELL: Oh, yeah. I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don't think I could lay down all that ******** sober, do you?


The ad, featuring a picture of Falwell and a bottle of Campari ended with the slogan "Campari. You'll never forget the first time." At the very top of the ad an asterick directed the reader to a footnote which read: "Ad Parody -- Not To Be Taken Seriously."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
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.


If distortion was against the law, the editors of the New York Times would all be in jail. Where's the news here sub?

[Penrich]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
On the inside front cover of a 1983 issue of Hustler, was what appeared to be an advertisement for Campari Liqueur with the headline: "Jerry Falwell Talks About His First Time" followed by an interview, excerpted below...
...

"Ad Parody -- Not To Be Taken Seriously."
The Hustler was able to get away this due to satire. The Fox story is not about satire. Not the same...

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Penrich

The Hustler was able to get away this due to satire. The Fox story is not about satire. Not the same...

Is deliberately distorted news reporting distinguishable from its parody?

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.

[bignickel]

"Tonight on the Fox Network: Did we really land on the Moon?

We'll present all the evidence, talk to experts on both sides of this controversy, and allow you, the home viewer to decide."

Warning: The Fox Network is not liable for anything said by anyone during this broadcast. The Fox Network further withholds any responsibility to the nation to provide accurate news. The Fox network upholds it's right to lie, if it believes it's necessary, or might lead to a better story and/or higher ratings.

My sister was bit by a moose. No really, she was!"

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


If distortion was against the law, the editors of the New York Times would all be in jail.
Oh that's ridiculous.

Where's the news here sub?
I don't know. Someone published it on the internet and I read it. Must be news.
There's a bit of irony in an organization trying to maintain credibility defending vigorously its right to lie.
Kind of like a food manufacturer defending its right to have rat feces in its product. Might put a damper on sales if it were widely known.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Does anyone know what the actual "lie" is ?

what was the story in question ?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

Does anyone know what the actual "lie" is ?

Yes (http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/recipientProfile.cfm?recipientID=106)

[Keneke]

Perhaps there should be somne standard for journalistic integrity, like the ADA seal or the Comic Code.

"This information source does not lie. A deliberate lie will remove our promotion."


Some sort of watchdog thingy.

[Bjorn]

Under pressure from Fox lawyers, the husband-and-wife team rewrote the story more than 80 times. After threats of dismissal and offers of six-figure sums to drop their ethical objections and keep quiet, they were fired in December 1997. Well, I guess Jedi was right about the leftist media not telling the truth, then. :(

Never trust the pinko commie Fox again! :p

[dsm]

Originally posted by Keneke
Perhaps there should be somne standard for journalistic integrity, like the ADA seal or the Comic Code.

"This information source does not lie. A deliberate lie will remove our promotion."

Some sort of watchdog thingy.

Integrity of the individual journalists doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem seems to be with the media conglomerates that control the news organizations.

Perhaps a better approach would be to have a federal news organizations and a law that allows journalists to safely offer their news story to the federal news organization if it is not accepted by their employer. In other words, give all journalists a way to openly publish their news without media conglomerate oversight.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Does anyone know what the actual "lie" is ?

what was the story in question ?
Was that helpful? Did you follow up and did it answer your questions?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by subgenius

Was that helpful? Did you follow up and did it answer your questions?

I looked at it and I find this a bit confusing. I'll take you through my thinking.

Journailsts write piece claiming that Americans are being exposed to a hormone treatment for dairy cattle that:

[list=1]
was approved by Government agencies without sufficient investigation and testing
places animals at a health risk
places those people who drink the milkat risk of cancer
[/list=1]

The television station was threatened with legal action by the manufacturer of the hormone, presumably on the basis that the report was false.

Despite repeated attempts to rewrite, the jourinalists would not back down from the key allegations in their report.

Journalists claim television station wanted them to "lie" because they refused to broadcast their allegations.

Sub, I am not sure on which side the lie lies. It seems to me to be a simple case of a serious public allegation, which could be seriously injurious to another party (the drug company, dairy farmers, milk processors) and potentially irresponsible and inaccurate scaremongering in the public domain.

On the other hand, it may be a case of a cover-up and conspiracy on the part of Fox, but if they believed there was sufficient evidence to back up the claims of the journalists, why would the network pass up such a scoop??

[a_unique_person]

The only thing I trust from Rupert is the Simpsons

[subgenius]

Drooper,
Good points.
Again my real interest in the story is the irony of the legal position. Doesn't seem it would be good for the reputation.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by subgenius

Doesn't seem it would be good for the reputation.

Works for us (http://www.theonion.com/onion3907/index.html).

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Works for us (http://www.theonion.com/onion3907/index.html).
Gosh darn it that continues to be the funniest thing out there.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3605/cram_in_my_anus.html

[subgenius]

Only the Onion could be poignant, respectful and hilarious about 9-11:
JAHANNEM, OUTER DARKNESS—The hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon expressed confusion and surprise Monday to find themselves in the lowest plane of Na'ar, Islam's Hell.

"I was promised I would spend eternity in Paradise, being fed honeyed cakes by 67 virgins in a tree-lined garden, if only I would fly the airplane into one of the Twin Towers," said Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, between attempts to vomit up the wasps, hornets, and live coals infesting his stomach. "But instead, I am fed the boiling feces of traitors by malicious, laughing Ifrit. Is this to be my reward for destroying the enemies of my faith?"

The rest of Atta's words turned to raw-throated shrieks, as a tusked, asp-tongued demon burst his eyeballs and drank the fluid that ran down his face.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html

[Frank Newgent]

Another classic (http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Is deliberately distorted news reporting distinguishable from its parody?


I may have to hunt up a source on this one, but I believe the Flynt defense rested on the concept that no reasonable reader would mistakenly believe that the parody story was actually true.

Not applicable to the Fox case.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Is deliberately distorted news reporting distinguishable from its parody?

Originally posted by gnome

I may have to hunt up a source on this one, but I believe the Flynt defense rested on the concept that no reasonable reader would mistakenly believe that the parody story was actually true.

Not applicable to the Fox case.

If it is given that: 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...

then how is one to take "the news" as if the representation were so?

I'll ask again. Is deliberately distorted news reporting distinguishable from its parody?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
I'll ask again. Is deliberately distorted news reporting distinguishable from its parody?[/i]

That's how I am trying to answer. I think that a parody is not meant to be mistaken for true. Usually there is either an express or implied understanding that it is parody.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

ownership cap up to 45%, from 35%

Robert Murdoch must be smacking his lips.

His media conglomerate will have more opportunity for
lying, concealing or distorting information

[Baker]

It’s a Fox Television affiliate in Tampa, Florida a local channel not the network.
Talk about trying to slant a story.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Keneke
Perhaps there should be somne standard for journalistic integrity, like the ADA seal or the Comic Code.

"This information source does not lie. A deliberate lie will remove our promotion."


Some sort of watchdog thingy.

That becomes problematic as well.

Once you come up with a way to "certify" information, then that system is subject to abuse and then the lies get certified and its even worse.

I'm afraid that this is a no win situation. Humanity will suffer from information and lie overload. My theory is that the 1800s and early 1900s were probably represent the most well informed age in world history and that its all down hill from here due to information overload and social deception.

Its the inherent problem with freedom of speech, for which there is no cure. Freedom of speech means freedom to lie, and restriction of speech means lack of freedom to tell the truth. There is no way to only allow truth to be told, because perception of truth is subjective. This is the future of Americanism especially.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


If distortion was against the law, the editors of the New York Times would all be in jail. Where's the news here sub?

NYT sacked the guilty guy for lying. Here they punished someone for not lying.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


NYT sacked the guilty guy for lying. Here they punished someone for not lying.

Some local tv news outfit doesn't have the reputation of being "the paper of record" like the NYT.

I believe news corp. america has summarily fired the last few screw ups they have had.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Some local tv news outfit doesn't have the reputation of being "the paper of record" like the NYT.

I believe news corp. america has summarily fired the last few screw ups they have had.

I don't think geraldo has the sack yet.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


NYT sacked the guilty guy for lying. Here they punished someone for not lying.

Wrong the NYT covered it up for some time until an out side source discovered it.

[Ladewig]

As for telling the truth on broadcast television, FCC TV licenses require TV stations to serve the public interest (Title 47). I would interpret that phrase as telling the truth in programs labeled "news."


Another important legal aspect related to this issue is the Illinois law that was passed several years ago preventing producers of dairy products from labeling their food as rGBH-free. Ben and Jerry's took them to court and won in 1997.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

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.
...
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.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

But then what would you expect from the "liberal" media?:rolleyes:

We should deport Rupert back to Australia :D

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well as for rBGH the American Council for Science and Health seems to think its safe:

http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/rBGH.html

As does the FDA even after reviewing criticisms:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/cpetup.html

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bst/RBRPTFNL.htm

What comes after this is accusations of corruption and such with the FDA. However such a position is ideological, not scientific. If you don't trust the FDA, that is purely an ideological/political position. However I for one think the FDA is a good institute which does look after the public interests and I'd side with them before I did organic foodists and such.

Also if the FDA flat out made stuff up, at the cost of public health, I'd imagine we'd hear about it from National Academies and Scientific America, not just media groups.

(Notice that's one thing the far left and right can agree on, the FDA and gentically engineered foods are bad. Sort of like both think evolutionary theory is bad.)

Hence the fact is Fox news, though I admit it is right wing, had good reason to fear a lawsuit. The evidence was not on their side, thus they were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.

[BobK]

Originally posted by Drooper


I looked at it and I find this a bit confusing. I'll take you through my thinking.

Journailsts write piece claiming that Americans are being exposed to a hormone treatment for dairy cattle that:

[list=1]
was approved by Government agencies without sufficient investigation and testing
places animals at a health risk
places those people who drink the milkat risk of cancer
[/list=1]

The television station was threatened with legal action by the manufacturer of the hormone, presumably on the basis that the report was false.

Despite repeated attempts to rewrite, the jourinalists would not back down from the key allegations in their report.

Journalists claim television station wanted them to "lie" because they refused to broadcast their allegations.

Sub, I am not sure on which side the lie lies. It seems to me to be a simple case of a serious public allegation, which could be seriously injurious to another party (the drug company, dairy farmers, milk processors) and potentially irresponsible and inaccurate scaremongering in the public domain.

On the other hand, it may be a case of a cover-up and conspiracy on the part of Fox, but if they believed there was sufficient evidence to back up the claims of the journalists, why would the network pass up such a scoop??

I agree with your assessment of the situation. I went to the reporter's website about the case and perused the documents on the legal proceedings. I found that all the exhibits seemed to be there, except for exhibit "D" where the reporters supposedly refute the concerns of the manufacture's representative.

Sort of makes me think their refutation wasn't valid if they don't even have it on their own site.

Seems I'll have to side with the station, given the paucity of evidence of be required to lie contained in the information on their site.

edit to add...
It seems the judge decided to base his/her ruling on whether it was legal for FOX to lie, rather than having to decide whose data and statistics were correct.

This does not mean that FOX was requiring them to lie, as no decision was rendered on that aspect.

[Lemastre]

Besides our Constitutional right to lie, lying is protected by the practical problems involved in separating lies from truth and assessing fault as well as degree and magnitude. Any laws against public lying in general would be overwhelmingly difficult to enforce. If lying in the media were illegal, the first few years of enforcment could be involved almost entirely with the advertising industry and political and religious publications. Right now, legal recourse against lying lies mainly in libel and slander suits, which require mostly that plaintiffs prove loss of money through intentional lying by defendants.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well as for rBGH the American Council for Science and Health seems to think its safe:

http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/rBGH.html

As does the FDA even after reviewing criticisms:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/cpetup.html

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bst/RBRPTFNL.htm

What comes after this is accusations of corruption and such with the FDA. However such a position is ideological, not scientific. If you don't trust the FDA, that is purely an ideological/political position. However I for one think the FDA is a good institute which does look after the public interests and I'd side with them before I did organic foodists and such.

Also if the FDA flat out made stuff up, at the cost of public health, I'd imagine we'd hear about it from National Academies and Scientific America, not just media groups.

(Notice that's one thing the far left and right can agree on, the FDA and gentically engineered foods are bad. Sort of like both think evolutionary theory is bad.)

Hence the fact is Fox news, though I admit it is right wing, had good reason to fear a lawsuit. The evidence was not on their side, thus they were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.


This is the second failed attempt to smear Fox News this makes the left 0-2!
The thread before ended up proving ABC NBC and CBS where the ones that where bias.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18137&perpage=40&pagenumber=2