Skip to comments.
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
the sierra times ^
| 3/3/03
| Mike Gaddy
Posted on 03/04/2003 11:43:01 AM PST by freepatriot32
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.
TOPICS: Announcements; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: abc; appellate; can; cbs; court; fox; legally; lie; media; nbc; netwrok; news; rules; upn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator
To: BillinDenver
"Journalists" have no right to publish what they like on someone else's dime.
If the folks in charge do not want a story to be broadcast then it is their call.
This chick was just mad at the editorial call.
She is right to squawk about what she sees as injustice or bad editing decisions if she wants everyone to take notice, but she should not expect to keep her job afterwards.
If we have learned anything in the past 50 years it is that the news media is big business - private enterprise.
We may not like it, but thats where we are.
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
To: BillinDenver
You bring up an interesting point, but you seem to forget that even that example is fraught with danger in that women frequently will claim the boss insisted upon sex when he did not. Often it is pure "he said she said" and no one knows for sure. Many men have been ruined by such charges - ask Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill about this.
Conservativs have understood for a long time that we can't PROVE that CBSnooze and the NYTimes are lying every day, but we are pretty certain. But we could not prove it in a court of law. (Once in a blue moon this MIGHT be possible - but the "journalists" are normally too smart to make it that obvious).
Which is why your wishful thinking attitude is going nowehre. Every single news report would be subject to legal challenge. That will never happen.
To: TexRef
Ah, WTVT. Ray Dantzler, Hugh Smith, Roy Leep and "Salty" Sol Fleishman (later Andy Hardy) (This in Manuel Berrio, "Salute and Happy Days from the Valencia Garden Restaurant"))
Damn how times have changed.
To: discostu
"We know from successful slander suits that indeed it is illegal for the media to lie."
No, media is liable for defamation if it defames someone. It's not just lying that is actionable; it's lying about a particular person in a way calculated to lower the esteem of that person in the community at large. Lying is not actionable per se.
To: dpwiener
We must always be extremely cautious about any laws which threaten to infringe on our First Amendment rights.
True, but we must also be extremely cautious about allowing those with power to abuse it at the expense of the innocent.
If someone is harmed by a negative news report, then they should have a way to recover damages - reliably and fairly. The First Amendment alone is not a justification for allowing that harm to go uncorrected. I'm not advocating prior restraint of any news story, only just compensation if harm has been done due to a lie.
There is only one justification for a harmful report: The Truth. If the news organization showed that their report was accurate and truthful, then the harm was not caused by their report, but by the behavior on which they reported.
If we made truth the only valid defense when libel/slander harm has been done, it would require those with the power of publicity to get their facts straight (as eventually determined by a jury, if necessary). Willful ignorance ("I don't care if my carelessness harms someone.") is not a defense for other kinds of harm - it may even be a compounding factor. Holding libel/slander to the same standard as other torts is not a harm to the country, to our rights, or to the First Amendment. But don't get me started on obscene damage awards - in either case.
I don't think the libel/slander laws apply in this case, because the subject of the report was not her reputation. The First Amendment might apply, but not libel/slander.
27
posted on
03/04/2003 1:26:29 PM PST
by
Gorjus
To: freepatriot32
More details available
here
snip
The four-part series questioning the safety of milk tainted with the controversial hormone BGH became a year-long debate after Monsanto, ...
28
posted on
03/04/2003 1:44:43 PM PST
by
tang-soo
To: Henrietta
Correct, as with any kind of suit there needs to be proof of harm.
The problem with FR is any time you over simplify something you'll get called on it ;)
29
posted on
03/04/2003 2:14:27 PM PST
by
discostu
(This tag intentionally left blank)
To: freepatriot32
Better back up your FNC with such media as The Washington Times, The New York Post, National Review, etc.
30
posted on
03/04/2003 6:53:45 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(There be no shelter here; the front line is everywhere!)
To: frnewsjunkie
The scary thing is Fox is the only one being charged. The other media have gotten by with it for too many years.
Does that not seem typical? For years networks would lie in order to push their own agenda. For example, when visiting a homeless shelter (only in years when there is a Republican in office) the networks will pass by and step over the drunken bums, the prostitutes, the drug dealers, and addicts to find the one family in 500 people at the shelter who are clean cut, white, and honestly down on their luck to show that the people out in the street are "just like us".
To: freepatriot32
The significant element about this decision was not that it isn't a crime to lie (if it were, Washington would be ghost town) but that it was permissible for a news service (here a TV network) to fire one of its journalists for refusing to lie.
Previously there had been cases of journalists fired when they were caught lying, but here is one fired for not lying.
32
posted on
03/05/2003 10:37:48 AM PST
by
DonQ
To: freepatriot32
To: freepatriot32
If the government is allowed to lie, why would not that which the government creates be allowed to lie (corporations)?.
Think about it.
---max
34
posted on
03/10/2003 10:17:47 AM PST
by
max61
To: freepatriot32
This whole article is paraphrased, and that leads me to believe that we're not hearing the whole story, and that an agenda is being promoted.
Call me cynical.
35
posted on
03/10/2003 10:20:50 AM PST
by
tcostell
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson