Media Research Center analysts monitored ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, MSNBC and NBC coverage of the 2004 Republican convention around the clock. Here are MRC's twice-daily reports documenting the coverage the Republicans received.
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,
Faxed and Bump!
test
bookmarking
Frankly, I think the people at the rally should file a class action lawsuit against the AP. Who knows, they could end up owning a newswire service.
Media Research Center analysts monitored ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, MSNBC and NBC coverage of the 2004 Republican convention around the clock. Here are MRC's twice-daily reports documenting the coverage the Republicans received.
Give em Hell, Zell.
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.