Chris Matthews tried to do to Zell what he did to Michelle Malkin.
Zell would have NONE of it!
Posted on 09/04/2004 7:40:48 AM PDT by jmstein7
The media, in its hatred of President Bush, has now gone too far. While free speech is indeed protected by the Constitution, false, libelous, defamatory speech is not. In the recent AP debacle over "booing," or lack thereof, the media has demonstrated its willingness to exceed its mandate and engage in unconstitutional behavior in its zeal to oust this president.
It is time to send the media a strong warning in language they understand... legal language. Now, we mean business.
Please fax the letter below to as many of these media outlets as you can:
1. Click HERE.
2. Enter the fax number in the window as follows (it must read exactly like this):
AP: +1-212-621-7520
Reuters: +1-212-859-1717
The NY Times Fax#1: +1-212-556-3690
Newsweek: +1-212-445-5068
Washington Post: +1-202-334-7502
ABC News: +1-212-456-4866
CBS News: +1-212-975-1893
NBC News: +1-212-664-2914
4. If you use the form, don't forget to include your email address. Otherwise, it won't send.
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that when an entity knowingly publishes false speech or recklessly disregards whether speech is false, then the speech merits no First Amendment protection - even if it involves a public official or an issue of public concern. See, for example, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court held in Sullivan that even false speech about government officials and matters of official conduct deserves protection unless it is published "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Indeed, the Court has written that reckless disregard for the truth on the part of media defendants is concomitant with "a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity." The Court also noted that reckless disregard for the truth exists when "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication."
The Associated Press recently crossed the line between protected speech and unprotected speech when it published -- and then retracted -- with "actual malice" a demonstrably false article regarding a crowd's reaction to President Bush's announcement of President Clinton's physical condition. Your publication is hereby on notice that false "news" stories or stories published with reckless disregard for the truth will not be tolerated.
Such stories cause real and tangible injuries. There is real damage to readers of false/fabricated news, as well as to the general public that relies on such information as conveyed to other news outlets that print your copy. For example, readers experience emotional embarrassment and mental anguish when they recognize that they have been duped by a news outlet claiming to release only hard news.
The harm of a misinformed and misguided public on matters directly affecting democratic self-governance is absolutely egregious and intolerable. Readers presumably form beliefs and opinions that they otherwise would not have held or reached if new outlets convey accurate and non-fabricated information. One cannot underestimate the harm of a misinformed and misguided public on matters directly affecting democratic self-governance. As noted above, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this.
Tainted news stories pollute the marketplace of ideas by harming readers' beliefs, opinions, and subsequent actions. It misguides their voting decisions, and affected issues such as their comfort with their government officials and their government's pursuit of war. The Court has added that a state has a valid interest in "safeguarding its populace from falsehoods." The Court also has held that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact." Moreover, the Court has made clear that a news organization can face legal accountability for publishing false statements about matters of public concern when it recklessly disregards whether those statements are false.
Sincerely,
Therein lies the neat legal device that -- with the help of experienced faculty -- I've devised. I.e., I have a theory of standing that allows members of the public, sustaining particularized, concrete injury, to sue for accountability.
1) Media Watch
Who watches the watchers? Sites that keep a watch on the media, checking for bias and accuracy:
2) about.com: Media Watch/Criticism
A collection of sites that watch for fairness and accuracy in the media.
3) ASN: Credibility
Publications from the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASN) on the credibility of journalism.
4) Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) is the national media watch group offering well-documented criticism in an effort to correct media bias and imbalance. Probably of the most interest is Media Files, which describes types of bias, and has specific examples of bias in the news.
5) NewsWatch.org
NewsWatch's mission is to watch the media watchdog on behalf of news consumers, and to give a voice to consumers who want to talk back to the media.
6) OneWorld Online: Media
A UK based not-for-profit organization, OneWorld Online is a partnership of organizations working for human rights and sustainable development. The emphasis here tends to be on media coverage which may be compromised due to suppressive governments.
7) Policy.com: Issue of the Week: Ethics and the Media
Policy.com examines whether the media experiencing a crisis of ethics. It also looks at the effect new electronic media, such as the Internet, has on media ethics and the role the paparazzi play in contributing to the media-ethics debate.
8) PBS: Online NewsHour Media Watch
From PBS. Part of the Online NewsHour site, this portion covers media. Special Interest: Background Reports | Media Matters.
9) Poynter.org: Ethics
Media ethics articles and source material from Poynter faculty and others.
10) SPJ: Ethics in Journalism
From the Society of Professional Journalists.
11) Yahoo! Media Ethics and Accountability
Sites that cover media.
Perhaps we Freepers need to start a twelfth!?
Thanks for putting that list together. I was starting to have trouble keeping up.
Well, good luck. I'll be eager to see what happens. All I know is that it's next to impossible to win a libel suit in this country.
Why would you wait for it to happen again?
"GO FOR IT"............. BUMP
Chris Matthews tried to do to Zell what he did to Michelle Malkin.
Zell would have NONE of it!
Actually, you are incorrect--the Bill of Rights makes no distinction. The Supreme Court and, by extension, lower courts tell us there is a distinction, e.g., Holmes' wrongheaded commercial speech in Sullivan v N.Y. Times. But the Constitution itself protects ALL speech. If you can find the distinction in the Bill of Rights, please ping me.
That's where we go from semantic problems with the word "Constitutional" to real problems: what the SC SAYS is constitutional and unconstitutional ain't necessarily so, except insofar as we obey the masters.
This is the second week in a row that AP has published false information. On August 28th, I wrote them regarding the false statement from Ben Barnes who claimed that when he was Lt. Governor of Texas, he helped George W. Bush get into the Air National Guard. I advised them that this was a lie as Barnes had not become Lt. Governor until 1969 and Bush had entered the ANG in 1968. I did not hear back from them regarding this, despite the fact that I demanded a correction. The Barnes story was written by Bobby Ross, Jr. Does anyone know who the dummy from AP was who wrote the "Boos" story?
Libel Law in the United States
The 18th-century framers of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press by writing that protection into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in America -- for years refused to protect the media from libel lawsuits by relying on the First Amendment. Instead, libel laws varied from state to state without a single coherent rule in the nation. . .Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them.
I don't like that one. Makes Zell look evil.
Well, when used for ZOTTING Trolls, that's not too bad a thing, though, is it? :^)
Bush-Cheney -04':
https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=I5B7P3F2B6
John Thune (help get RID of Tom Daschle):
https://www.rapiddonor.com/JohnThune/
Richard Burr (Keep "Irksome Bowels" OUT of the Senate):
http://www.richardburrcommittee.com/contribute.html
Lisa Murkowski (she REALLY needs our help!):
http://www.lisamurkowski.com/artman/publish/contribute.html
Herman Cain (a Zell Miller favorite!):
https://secure.oswaltsystems.net/cainforussenate/contributions.asp
Bill Jones (get RID of Barbara Boxer!):
https://www.calnetpay.com/contmgt/Contribution.aspx?CommitteeID=9
The National Senate Republican Committee:
https://donate.nrsc.org/index.cfm?mode=account&category_meta_id=150
The National Republican Congressional Committee:
https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=K6X4V6F8B6
Give until it HURTS! (I am)
These guys need us!
Please ping me when you add Tom Hays.
BTTT!!!!!!
Dear (medium name),
As the "fourth estate" you have failed.
Media is the only business that has constitutional protection.
As such, you have a delicate, extremely important responsibility to tell the truth and not to shade your reporting so as to favor any "side".
You have miserably failed in your responsibility.
Shame on you!
See #47! Yea ZELL!
Thank you for a great service for the truth and the public good.
Thanks for all you do, jm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
