Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Concerns About Disputed Bush Military Records

ABC News ^ | 9-14-04 | Brian Ross

[Cboldt]

I have as a consumer...unfair business practice, deceptive business practice...California land of liberal consumer laws..

No money changing hands. No business laws are broken.

[mercy]

Definitely a moisturizer.

[CurlyDave]

Killian's widow's reputation is fine. So is the son's. The only person who has been defamed is GWB.

I should have been more specific. One of the parties harmed is Killian's estate. I presumed that his widow and son would be heirs and would therefore have a financial interest.

[Cboldt]

I should have been more specific. One of the parties harmed is Killian's estate. I presumed that his widow and son would be heirs and would therefore have a financial interest.

No problem. And I am not trying to be a weenine about this, or play it just for giggles. I seriously wonder what legal action is clearly applicable, and am coming up blank.

I don't see how Killian's estate can lose value on these events. If the family does nothing, the estate is status quo, does whatever it would have anyway (alwasy some uncertainty in the future). A positive upside exists, they can get in on book deals that were heretofore unavailable, if they want. They are free to clear their name, and take the position opposite the position of CBS. In the public eye, they likely come off as honest.

But that doesn't prevent CBS and/or the DNC from lying its @ss off.

[rolling_stone]

......"No money changing hands. No business laws are broken"....

I am usually very tactful and polite, but you don't know what you are talking about. The law is a very broadbased law. It is to protect consumers and promote fair competition. The other networks had customers stolen based on deception. Advertisers got more play based on deception. Consumers watched one station over another based on deception.

Posted by rolling_stone to jmstein7; Steven W.
On News/Activism 09/11/2004 7:01:35 PM PDT · 28 of 33


I suggested a suit under California Business & Professsions code 17200 et seq...it's a catch all Unfair Business Practices Act including deceptive (not even fraudulent) business practices..(theory is unfair competition, would love to see 20/20 sue 60 minutes).the law is liberal calls for attorneys fees to plaintiff if they win, however no damages, just restitution.and disgorgement of profits to defendant!..standing open to anyone in the state(they are trying to change that part due to large amount of suits but is still law)..Discovery would be the main object...along with retraction apologies, and defeat of Dan Rather....Hey liberal Calyfornia is good for something!


"Under the enormously broad UCL, any private attorney can independently sue a business without needing a client or any evidence showing someone has actually been deceived or harmed. A suit can be brought even if the alleged misconduct has already been investigated and/or remedied by the attorney general, district attorney or a regulatory agency. "

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/california_unfair_business_practices_attack.html


http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/california_u_c_l.htm

[rolling_stone]

interesting article on defaming the dead:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040312.html

[Cboldt]

I am usually very tactful and polite, but you don't know what you are talking about. The law is a very broadbased law. It is to protect consumers and promote fair competition. The other networks had customers stolen based on deception. Advertisers got more play based on deception. Consumers watched one station over another based on deception.

Do you know of any successful suits where the unfair trade didn't involve the sale of goods or services? Television networks put fiction on the air to attract viewers, and fiction is the ultimate in "deception." When NBC did the "blow up the truck" stunt, the apology went to GM, not to rival networks.

The California Supreme Court reversed (4-3), characterizing Nikes messages as commercial speech, a designation that stripped Nikes statements of their full First Amendment protections

Here is a comment in the article you referenced. It sheds some light on the scope of the Commercial practices law. What is it about the CBS broadcast involving forgeries is "commercial?"

I'm not saying a suit can't be brought. It certainly can be. But I have yet to see a clear legal theory that prohibits CBS from openly embracing, and expressing ONLY the DNC point of view. Best I can figure, that is perfectly legal. See Air America.

[Cboldt]

interesting article on defaming the dead

Indeed. It says there is no legal theory under common law that permits an action to stand, and that legislation is required if such a theory of action is to exist.

[rolling_stone]

Off the top of my head I don't know of any cases that didn't involve sales of good and services, but clearly the law is available, CBS is selling a service and bad goods, and subject to public policy in a Presidential Election. Certainly they have been unethical immoral, and unscrupulous.

...."For example, California courts have tried to define "unfair" through a process that resembles "rule of reason" analysis - examining reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer and weighing the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim. This effort, however, has not resulted in a standard that clearly guides conduct....

.....In search of an actual standard, courts have turned to Federal cases interpreting Section 5 of the FTC Act, and have held that a business practice is unfair "when it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers." (PEOPLE V. CASA BLANCA CONVALESCENT HOMES, INC. 159 CAL. APP. 3D 509, 530 [1984])....."


http://www.pillsburywinthrop.com/topics/sample.asp?id=000057881444

[Cboldt]

but clearly the law is available, CBS is selling a service and bad goods, and subject to public policy in a Presidential Election. Certainly they have been unethical immoral, and unscrupulous.

As I said, it is certainly possible to sue. CBS is, however, to me as a consumer, offering entertainment for free, if I tune in. I don't have to tune in, and the only price I pay for tuning in is having to watch some commercial advertising.

Air America is intellectually dishonest. So is O'Reilly, Imus, Meet the Press, etc. Immoral? I didn't see so much as a nipple. Unscrupulous? Of course! THis is after all politics, not bean bag.