Court rules: Media can lie.

[jsalcedo]

Fl Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
SierraTimes.com
3-1-3


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.

 

[El Tejon]

The Sixty Minutes Sharon hit piece taught us that lesson.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Chilling.

If the media can legally lie about "news," why can't I legally lie when conversing with a police officer? The first Amendment was intended to protect people for speaking the truth, as well as the right to express an opinion. A documented lie is neither a fact nor an opinion ... it is a lie. I don't agree with the court that the First Amendment protects the right to lie to the public.

 

[Redneck Revolver]

ive known that for years now. i typically dont watch the news, it makes me feel ashamed for supporting liars.

 

[El Tejon]

Time for Media Control. Apply the NFA rules to the media! $200 tax on newspapers, police permission before broadcast or publication of a story, all reporters submit 7 fingerprint cards per story, administrative inspections of all newspaper offices and television studios.

 

[Rebar]

And this is news, why? Because it happened with Fox news?

The MSM has been doing this for decades. I remember it was like, what, 20 years ago where some news magazine show actually rigged a car with explosives, then rolled and detonated it to "prove" it was "dangerous". And of course we have the recent CBS reporting forged documents as truth to derail Bush's campaign.

Here's a website which will give you some insight into the media:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/

While far from perfect, Fox news still has far less distortion then all the MSM combined.

 

[jsalcedo]

And this is news, why? Because it happened with Fox news?

No. It is because of the court ruling.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Kind of deceiving...

This ruling doesn't appear to make it "legal to lie" it simply reverses the monetary judgment against Fox. I find it ironic that Fox would defend this case nationally in court... Nevertheless, some states DO have criminal statutes which permit a person to either sue or criminally prosecute for slander or libel.

Court rulings on appeal address specific issues of Constitutionality and law, NOT facts. Facts are to be determined at trial. The appeals court cannot assign some other outcome; for example, the appeal was to the judgment of 400k dollars, the appeals court could not legally overturn this and at the same time rule that the party was 'also guilty of mopery with intent to creep' so we're assigning the guilty party that conviction instead...

 

[BryanP]

This ruling is over 2 years old. Funny how you didn't hear much about it in the news.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Lol, nice one.

 

[taliv]

how the heck do you tell the difference between a "policy" and a "promulgated law, rule, or regulation"??

wonder how much of the FAA and ATF's "policies" aren't law, rule or regulation. I'd bet a lot of their gun-classification stuff is policy

 

[gm]

see, I knew there was a reason that there was no such thing as a double barreled shotgun..in 357 magnum that looked strangly similiar to a ak-47.



Im crushed..the media lied.

 

[griz]

When CBS aired Dan Rather's Bush memo story, it didn't surprise me that they had to do some clean up after the truth was obvious. It does surprise me that people still put so much trust in network news.

 

[stevelyn]

I hope no one here believed the courts would rule any other way. Doing so would undermine their agenda.

 

[cuchulainn]

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 Founders would have supported this ruling. Political propaganda is the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment, and political propaganda requires "lying, concealing or distorting information."

That's right, the goal of the Founders was to protect the right of the press to distort facts, conceal facts and otherwise package facts in order to push opinion to a certain political viewpoint -- and if you doubt this, read the press of the first 150 years of the Republic: overt bias was the norm.

That's right, the goal of the Founders was to create a biased press. Our problem is not that the press is biased. It's that the bias is weighed so heavily to the left.

I think that Fox is a cheesy operation -- but its creation was sorely needed. We needed a right-biased outfit to balance all the left-biased outfits. Fox wears its bias on its sleeve and thus is a refreshing return to the days of over-the-top, overt bias. I'd love it if we returned to the days of such overt bias -- at least people in the 19th Century were armed with the knowledge that they were reading propaganda. Now, with this fake notion of an unbiased press, too many people are lulled into accepting the propaganda at face valued, including viewers of Fox.

 

[flatrock]

"If the media can legally lie about "news," why can't I legally lie when conversing with a police officer? The first Amendment was intended to protect people for speaking the truth, as well as the right to express an opinion. A documented lie is neither a fact nor an opinion ... it is a lie. I don't agree with the court that the First Amendment protects the right to lie to the public."

It was Fox's lawyers that claimed the first ammendment protected their right to lie, not the Judges in their ruling.

The Judges ruled that there was no law against purposfully lying in the news.

That tells me that the legislature needs to get to work and make such a law.

 

[cuchulainn]

Flatrock,

Lying under oath, slander, libel, child porn etc. are all exceptions carved out of the First Amendment. However, in general, lying is protected speech, especially if that lying is done for political purposes or by the press.

Lies told by the media are no different than the lies (a.k.a. campaign promises) told by political candidates -- they are abhorent, but nonetheless protected.

With the exception of libel, we have not (yet) carved out an "media lies" exception to the First Amendment. The press remains free to say what it likes.

 

[kfranz]

Remember, the JOB of the media is to create profit, not tell the truth. I'd much rather have them lying(get it, Rather/lying.... ) out in the open than I would having the gov't determining whether or not they've told the truth.....