Author
|
Topic: The FOX rationale...No law or regulation says News must be True
|
Catalina Knowflake Posts: 1083 From: shamballa Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted January 02, 2014 12:07 PM
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.” So the First Amendment justifies the corporation, but the employee has no equal right... IP: Logged |
Ami Anne Moderator Posts: 51000 From: Pluto/house next to NickiG Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted January 02, 2014 01:03 PM
As usual, this makes no sense ------------------ Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course. http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 6870 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 02, 2014 02:16 PM
“The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”Precisely, Fair and Balanced=Fox News. These reporters lost sight of the fact every story has at least 2 sides, not only the side they want shown. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC would be out of business if there was a law mandating what they reported had to be true. Nevertheless, Fox News is the most trusted news service in the United States...by a very large margin. IP: Logged |
Catalina Knowflake Posts: 1083 From: shamballa Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted January 07, 2014 01:32 AM
Yes, their "sound defense" is that they aren't obligated to tell the truth.The fact that others also distort things now has legal precedent. How wonderful! As to the fawning "fair and balanced" sop, it directly contradicts the core of their argument, which is that there is no legal obligation to be truthful. Plenty to fight a defamation clause with all by itself, innit? As to trusted, they are losing their audience significantly, so that sounds like just one more fictitious claim on the part of the network that brags about not bothering with the facts. IP: Logged |
iQ Moderator Posts: 4621 From: Chennai, India Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 07, 2014 08:16 AM
Part of this topic had been debated some years ago in a TV show called "Boston Legal". The argument that convinced the judge to overturn a ban on Fox News in a school was that News is mostly Infotainment for making money, so it was ok for a News Channel to air any content to make money. [In that show, A school Principal initially bans Fox News because Arab students were being beaten up after other students viewed Fox News. ]I actually like Fox News, as it is the most honest representation of the Neo Conservative Extreme Right Wing Mindset, and every smart person must know clearly what the opposite spectrum of Liberal Secular Humanism is thinking. I wish they give the freedom on that channel for their "experts" to say whatever term they want to use to describe African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs and the LGBT Community. This is one big mistake made by Liberals, we have allowed negative people to hide behind the mask of political correctness.
IP: Logged |
Ami Anne Moderator Posts: 51000 From: Pluto/house next to NickiG Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted January 07, 2014 08:57 AM
This is one big mistake made by Liberals, we have allowed negative people to hide behind the mask of political correctness. Very wise words, IQ! ------------------ Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course. http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
Catalina Knowflake Posts: 1083 From: shamballa Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted January 07, 2014 01:17 PM
I agree, IQ, it is a good source of info and a great predictor of what people here@ GU will be talking about too. Their 25-54 yr old audience is deserting in droves tho, because really, all that manufactured negativity is bad for one's energy. I am wishing RushLimbaugh a safe migration to Costa Rica, as he promised to do back in 2009 when '14 came around and the PPACA actually went into effect. Not sure Costa Rica will have him though... IP: Logged |
Ami Anne Moderator Posts: 51000 From: Pluto/house next to NickiG Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted January 07, 2014 03:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Catalina: I agree, IQ, it is a good source of info and a great predictor of what people here@ GU will be talking about too. Their 25-54 yr old audience is deserting in droves tho, because really, all that manufactured negativity is bad for one's energy. I am wishing RushLimbaugh a safe migration to Costa Rica, as he promised to do back in 2009 when '14 came around and the PPACA actually went into effect. Not sure Costa Rica will have him though...
If you would open that nogin of yours to someone like Rush, you would be much better off, Cata. One of these days you are gonna wake up, it best be sooner, rather than later but I am sure it won't be lol
------------------ Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.
http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 6870 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 09, 2014 10:47 PM
Yes, Fox news didn't have to litigate this woman's claims. Why would they? Fox attorneys took the direct route and had the case struck down on the basis there is no law they broke.Of course, I realize the usual suspects and O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers don't want cases litigated on the "actual laws". They want to make up bullshiiite as they go along and litigate on appearances...which are not law. IP: Logged |