Posted on 08/22/2002 4:00:31 PM PDT by Darlin'
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Why do you think they should be free to spew unsubtantiated vile under the cover of "free and impartial journalism"?
They should be able to - as should any one of us - express any opinion they want as long as its not defamatory. 1st Amendment. For example, if they believe the Presidents foreign policy is shortsighted and opportunistic, they have a right to say it. They do not, however, have a right to say the President has an IQ of 50 or that Dick Cheney is an alien from outer space, since that's defamatory (i.e. can be proved to be untrue).
Should the "press" continue to enjoy special "free speech rights", when they eschew responcibilty?
Your question is meaningless, since they don't enjoy any special rights - atleast not from a legalistic standpoint. The fact that we as a society tend to give the media a pass when they say things that we wouldn't have given a pass for to a private citizen, does not bestow upon the media any special rights.
If I prove malice on the part of the "press", can I expect lawfull corrective actions and penalties?
If you can prove defamation or any other crime, then I would expect so, yes.
Hopefully that does it. I have to say, you've piqued my interest somewhat. I'm very curious to see where all this is leading so if you have anything further to add, I will respond, tomorrow after work.. Good night for now.
The real question is, what did they buy for what reason? They bought a snuff film of a dog to show that Al Queda had chemical weapons? Was this really a shock or news to you that they had this capacity? As for the payment of it, if the US military had it, it wouldn't have been sold or released for that matter. This was an Al Queda tape, so how does someone not associated with Al Quidea get his hands on it? And it these greedy journalists love seeing dogs get wasted, hey, you can see a babys skin pealed off its body...well its not made yet, but for a post production fee of say $50k, we can get the final editing done.
Sound far fetched? Remember it was CNN that created the story of Vietnam troops using nearve gas on Vietnamese civilians using no proof, only one nut jobs mental regression. They now need hardcore proof. How do we know that this dog snuff film wasn't made just for CNN sweeps week? They have been bleeding ratings and viewers to FOX. They have made up storys in the past, and I do not put it past them creating a story for cheap ratings.
Your question is meaningless, since they don't enjoy any special rights - atleast not from a legalistic standpoint. The fact that we as a society tend to give the media a pass when they say things that we wouldn't have given a pass for to a private citizen, does not bestow upon the media any special rights.
You don't think NYT v. Sullivan gives the press special rights? And as a matter of practice, don't you know that reporters, for example, are given deference that wouldn't be shown to you in trial proceedings regarding obligation to give testimony?
In my opinion, the problem for CNN, is not whether they were justified or not since it is their money, but that their so called "credibility" is in question. Look at the tabloids such as National Enquirer and Star. Even when they DO publish accurate newsworthy stories, no one believes them because they regularly pay their sources. It is only when the info can be "independantly confirmed" does anyone buy their stories. People will say and do anything for a buck. Fraudulent tapes can be easily made if the perp knows he can get big bucks for it. Particularly in that part of the world, that kind of money goes a long way. By paying such a huge sum, CNN has joined the ranks of the tabloid, and lying about it even further guarantees that comparison.
Where the money went is a whole other issue and a very sensitive one at that. If there is even the slightest chance that such a large sum of American money ended up in the enemy's hand over this, which basically is a non-story, then I feel they have aided and abetted the enemy. Had this happened with a conservative organization, the dems would be marching on Congress right now demanding a full investigation.
I do understand the fact that you are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, and in most cases, I try to be non-judgemental until I know all the facts. However in this case, we are fighting for our lives and throwing cash in the direction of those who want to destroy us is so totally irresponsible, it shouldn't even be considered.
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.