Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie

[toms]

from 2003, but stil interesting:

 

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

 

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

 

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

 

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

 

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

 

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

 

...

 

The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.

 

Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”

 

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

[SkinWalker]

It just goes to show how mainstream media is influenced, even controlled, by corporations. The national mainstream media are the defenders of capitalism and corporate values first, purveyors of truth second.

 

There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" at Fox or any other Rupert Murdoch media outlet. The closest thing that Americans can find to unbiased media is NPR, PBS, and BBC.

[Loopster]

That ain't cool.

 

What worries me more is the precedent set by the court through its ruling. It's not just Faux that can get away with it but anyone and everyone with a lawyer.

[wassup]

Just great. Not only does the government have the right to lie to us, now so do the media. First, the politicians give us falsified information, and then (some of) the media manipulates that into a bigger lie that is even farther away from the truth.

 

The only check and balance to this is the public and the FCC. Too bad these days they are muddled in the life-altering subjects of Janet's boobies or a few cuss words in a classic American war film.

 

[CapNColostomy]

The only thing I find suprising about this, is that people thought until now, the media was being honest in the first place. I thought they always lied?!?! And not just here in the states.

[toms]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

The only thing I find suprising about this, is that people thought until now, the media was being honest in the first place. I thought they always lied?!?! And not just here in the states.

 

Its not that they lie, its that (a) they are so blatant about admitting it that they are willing to use their "right" to lie in a court case and (b) that they can fire people for trying to tell the truth... then sue them for refusing to lie...

[Leper Messiah]

the media doesnt always outrightly lie, more often they distort and/or exaggerate things or put slants on stories to give the effect they want. theres not a whole lot you can do about that, but i believe there should be a law against outright false reporting, i had taken for granted that there was one already, but apparently not. (maybe there is one here in the UK but not in the US) such a law needs immediate enactment. however large corporations have a big say these days in the states and i guess it wouldnt sit too well with some of them.

 

by wassup

Not only does the government have the right to lie to us, now so do the media.

 

cant really have the first without the second, so its not really a new thing seeing as though Governments have never been 100% honest (not always,incidently, is that a bad thing)

[Spider AL]

The only thing I find suprising about this, is that people thought until now, the media was being honest in the first place. I thought they always lied?!?! And not just here in the states.

They lie to you more in the US than in most developed, western nations, to be honest. We tend to find it amusing/confusing that so many Americans believe the lies too. I mean, they're so unconvincing!

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

They lie to you more in the US than in most developed, western nations, to be honest. We tend to find it amusing/confusing that so many Americans believe the lies too. I mean, they're so unconvincing!

 

if the BBC did the same sort of thing plenty of british people would believe it

[SkinWalker]

I think there are relatively few cases where it can be demonstrated that various mainstream media outlets lie to the public. Not directly. There are certainly lies of omission, such as not giving equal coverage to multiple sides of issues, but intentionally making false statements to readers/viewers/listners is rare. If I'm wrong, I'd be very interested in seeing the citations and sources to rebut that hypothesis.

 

There are, of course, several instances where individuals within media have lied (and probably still do) in their reports and stories. But this lie is deceptive not only to the public, but to the media outlet itself, and is another matter.

 

That the various media are biased was a given, but this marks a precedent that is very bad. Now, a newspaper or news service has a legal citation to use in defending its decisions to lie to its audience in order to maintain a corporate or governmental status quo or improve political relationships with either. Thus the public is further removed from the ability to make an informed opinion.

[Spider AL]

I think there are relatively few cases where it can be demonstrated that various mainstream media outlets lie to the public.

I wouldn't be so charitable. Yes, Fox news and its ilk leaves itself a little out, but so do politicians. Frankly, lying by omission and publishing one-sided stories... Still lying.

 

They don't have to get up on stage and shout "George Bush is the greatest president ever, and there WERE WMDs in Iraq!" All they have to do is neglect to screen any reports that there were no WMDs in Iraq, after the fact.

 

Which largely, they did.

 

There are, of course, several instances where individuals within media have lied

Again, you're more charitable than I am. Just as religions must take responsibility for the actions of their appointed clerics, so must media organisations take responsibility for the bias of their reporters.

 

if the BBC did the same sort of thing plenty of british people would believe it

No doubt there are some, and I'd be just as surprised and amused by their ignorance were the day to come. But frankly, America's been spoonfed neoconservative propaganda since the late seventies/early eighties, and yes, I think this probably makes the populace more susceptible to falsehood than most.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

 

No doubt there are some, and I'd be just as surprised and amused by their ignorance were the day to come. But frankly, America's been spoonfed neoconservative propaganda since the late seventies/early eighties, and yes, I think this probably makes the populace more susceptible to falsehood than most.

 

without a doubt, though it also makes the more sensible ones more cynical

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Spider AL

They lie to you more in the US than in most developed, western nations, to be honest. We tend to find it amusing/confusing that so many Americans believe the lies too. I mean, they're so unconvincing!

 

Yeah, sorta like the world famous British tabloids! C'mon man. I know everyone in Europe thinks all Americans are dumb and fat. But are you actually going to tell me now that we also have a corner on the market of lying/being lied to? Wow. Europe is sounding more and more like ****ing Eutopia.

[Darth333]

Talking about news distortion, it is interesting to compare the article in the first post, more particularly this paragraph:

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

With the original judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida (2nd district) (warning it can be quite technical if you never read this kind of stuff before - if requested I can explain later on but I think this judgment is quite short and clear): http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

 

...news distorsion is everywhere

[Spider AL]

Yeah, sorta like the world famous British tabloids!

We've already established that every country is lied to to a certain extent, Colostomy.

 

I know everyone in Europe thinks all Americans are dumb and fat. But are you actually going to tell me now that we also have a corner on the market of lying/being lied to?

Erm... Yes.

 

Among western, contemporary states, the US would appear to be more susceptible to propaganda than others. After all, you elected GW, didn't you.

 

without a doubt, though it also makes the more sensible ones more cynical

Sadly this does not balance things out.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Spider AL

After all, you elected GW, didn't you.

 

No, as a matter of fact I didn't participate at all, thank you. Did you and your country men elect this guy?

 

 

No? Oh that's right, nobody elected him at all.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

No, as a matter of fact I didn't participate at all, thank you. Did you and your country men elect this guy?

 

 

No? Oh that's right, nobody elected him at all.

 

that man possesses a position of absolutely no legal clout whatsoever. anyone with a passing fasmiliarity with British politics knows that the current Queen has made the position of monarch (which Charles is not in at this time) a largely ceremonial one.

 

by Spider AL

Sadly this does not balance things out.

 

sadly, i think you're right

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by wassup

the FCC. Too bad these days they are muddled in the life-altering subjects of Janet's boobies or a few cuss words in a classic American war film.

 

The FCC has always dealt with BS trivial taboo crap. The FCC can kiss my hairy mixed ethnic ass.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

The only thing I find suprising about this, is that people thought until now, the media was being honest in the first place. I thought they always lied?!?! And not just here in the states.

 

Indeed. I never pay attention to the news, or any media. Cept the daily show. Where they atleast make their fake news funny.

[Spider AL]

No, as a matter of fact I didn't participate at all, thank you. Did you and your country men elect this guy?

Prince Charles has no political power in our society. Your example is therefore irrelevant and flawed.

 

No, as a matter of fact I didn't participate at all, thank you.

As you well know, I was referring to AMERICA, not you personally. Don't be flippant.

 

And since you didn't address my point AT ALL, I'll presume that you accept it.

[CapNColostomy]

I thought I'd spoken clear enough English in my previous posts to make it obvious I didn't accept what you'd said. I guess not. And I wasn't being "flippant". You used the word "you". Not "America". So with my inability to read minds, and having only your text to go by, I drew the logical conclusion that by "you", you meant me. See how that works?

[Spider AL]

I thought I'd spoken clear enough English in my previous posts to make it obvious I didn't accept what you'd said.

Actually you typed rebuttals that were in turn rebutted. The fact that you refuse to even attempt to rebut my rebuttals of your initial rebuttals obviously means that you are unable to rebut. It's crystal clear. Like it or not, you are accepting my arguments by omission.

 

You used the word "you". Not "America". So with my inability to read minds, and having only your text to go by, I drew the logical conclusion that by "you", you meant me. See how that works?

Sorry mate, but you, as one person, cannot elect a president all by yourself. You can vote for a candidate, but the president is elected by the majority of the electorate, which comprises more people... than just you.

 

So it doesn't take a mind reader to realise that when someone is discussing America as a nation, and uses the words "You elected GW", he's referring to the US electorate, and not a single entity called Colostomy.

 

No, it doesn't take a mind reader. Just a certain level of concentration.

 

"See how that works?" That's no longer flippant, it's bordering on offensive, and certainly patronising.

[CapNColostomy]

Actually, I prefer to think that it's rather pointless to continue arguing something that neither of us can prove. Fine. You rebutted my rebuttels. So? Did you actually prove anything? No? Oh, I thought so. Rebut all you like about which countrys media lies more, and which country has citizens that believe the lies more. Now rebut and prove it...I hear crickets, "mate". I'm accepting exactley two things regarding yout rebuttals. Jack, and ****. Omission isn't an issue.

 

As far as your "Sorry mate, but you, as one person, cannot elect a president blah-blah-blah" statement goes...Yeah. I already knew that. You said "you". Not me. I wasn't seeking clarification, just letting you know that, once again, I did not elect GW. But you already knew that. And we've established that. Moving on...

 

No longer flippant? Great news, because as much as I like saying the same things over and over, my intent was not to be flippant. But I'm certainly more troubled to find that you've moved along to find a simple frase like "See how that works?" offensive in place of flippant. Because offense was also not my intent. A little bit patronising maybe. Slick at the mouth? Certainly. Offensive, no. It's just talk man. Don't let it get you worked up. Maybe I don't always choose the most polite way to say something, but I honestly don't mean to offend. I read things in the senate DAILY that I don't agree with. But none of the opinions offend me. They're just opinions. Doesn't make 'em fact. And even the things that are facts...who cares?

[Spider AL]

Actually, I prefer to think that it's rather pointless to continue arguing something that neither of us can prove.

I've made an assertion and backed it up with examples. You've tried to COUNTER that assertion, without ANY backup. So frankly, I've technically proven my point... at least to the necessary level for it to stand up to your arguments.

 

Now rebut and prove it...

Ideally ALL rebuttals contain at least one fact intended to back up an argument. All my examples have contained suchlike. See my earlier post about Faux news' absence of coverage of the absence of WMDs in Iraq. See my example about the fact that the US populace voted GW back in, despite there being no good, logical reason to do so. So yes, I've given an example where the US media lies disproportionately to the US populace. Yes, I've given an example demonstrating the unusual gullibility of the US electorate, as a result of all this lying.

 

You haven't countered either. So why are you accusing ME of failing to prove MY case?

 

Maybe I don't always choose the most polite way to say something, but I honestly don't mean to offend

...

 

lol.

 

So you don't choose a polite way of replying... but you don't mean to offend? That doesn't make any sense at all, Colostomy. Being polite is ALL ABOUT picking something that's inoffensive to say. If you're being impolite, of course people will find you offensive. You're either polite, or impolite.

 

Offensive, no. It's just talk man. Don't let it get you worked up.

The only way to BE offensive to me here is through "talk". What's your point?

 

And I'm not getting worked up, I'm merely pointing out the fact that you have no arguments... AND you're becoming offensive. Hardly winning form.

 

As far as your "Sorry mate, but you, as one person, cannot elect a president blah-blah-blah" statement goes...Yeah. I already knew that. You said "you". Not me. I wasn't seeking clarification, just letting you know that, once again, I did not elect GW. But you already knew that. And we've established that. Moving on...

This paragraph makes no sense to me. Please rephrase?

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I've made an assertion and backed it up with examples. You've tried to COUNTER that assertion, without ANY backup. So frankly, I've technically proven my point... at least to the necessary level for it to stand up to your arguments.

 

No, you haven't. You've gave ideas, not facts. Bad ones at that, that do nothing to prove that the US media lies more than anyone elses. And you've also not proven that the US populace is any more gullible than anyone else. Once again, you've given bad ideas, and crap opinion. NO FACTS. You've proven nothing.

 

You've gave piss poor examples at best. Yeah. That's right, PISS POOR. And proven NOTHING. You've mentioned "Faux news" not reporting on the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Well guess what? That makes perfect sense to me. Why would they report not finding anything? Everyone already knows that there've been no WMDs found. So who the hell wants to hear this nightly: "This just in! Still no WMDs found in Iraq! Stay tuned for more breaking coverage on the lack of leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus being found." Now if they'd found anything, there might be something to report. I think everyone already KNOWS that no WMDs have been found. So why would they be reporting on it still? See how that works? And as far as the media being used to elect Bush goes, I thought the media did a fine job covering BOTH canidates pros and cons. In fact, democrats in this country will usually be the first to tell you it was a close race, and that Kerry nearly won anyway. So if nearly half the voting electorates voted one way or the other, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?! WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT YOUR COUNTRY, OR ANY OTHER EUROPEAN NATION HAS A MORE HONEST MEDIA, OR A LESS GULLIBLE POPLACE?! YOU HAVE NONE. YOU'VE PROVEN NOTHING. Thank you.

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Ideally ALL rebuttals contain at least one fact intended to back up an argument.

 

Ideally, yes. With the unfortunate exception of your "examples".

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

You haven't countered either. So why are you accusing ME of failing to prove MY case?

 

See above. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

So you don't choose a polite way of replying... but you don't mean to offend? That doesn't make any sense at all, Colostomy. Being polite is ALL ABOUT picking something that's inoffensive to say. If you're being impolite, of course people will find you offensive. You're either polite, or impolite.

 

The only way to BE offensive to me here is through "talk". What's your point?

 

And I'm not getting worked up, I'm merely pointing out the fact that you have no arguments... AND you're becoming offensive. Hardly winning form.

 

Well, "winning" isn't what I was striving for, I would hope if you're trying to win some prize, you could think of something better to reply with. You know, something involving facts and not bad ideas. But anyway, I stated that my intention was not to offend. Having said this, if you decide that you are still offended, then you've made a choice. You've chosen to be offended. And beyond saying "I wasn't trying to offend you", I can't be bothered to care if you've taken offense. Soooo....There's that. Be offended if you want to. I'll be over here not giving a crap.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

This paragraph makes no sense to me. Please rephrase?

 

No. Suffer. I typed it out once already in clear, easy to read, simple direct English. Anyway, I'm tired of arguing with you. Especially since your arguments consist of "I already proved it!" When you've not. Good day. I win. You lose. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

[Spider AL]

You've gave piss poor examples at best. Yeah. That's right, PISS POOR.

Ooh. He said the "P" word.

 

You've mentioned "Faux news" not reporting on the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Well guess what? That makes perfect sense to me. Why would they report not finding anything?

Because your wonderful president and his cabinet based going to war on the presence of WMDs?

 

Everyone already knows that there've been no WMDs found.

Actually there were a high percentage of Americans who were NOT aware that WMDs were absent, and because of the weighted reporting by such networks as Faux, some of them actually believed that WMDs HAD been found. Which they hadn't.

 

So if nearly half the voting electorates voted one way or the other, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?!

My proof is that the majority of the US electorate voted for a button-eyed freakishly idiotic draft-dodging neoconservative warmonger, who had consumately proven his inadequacy to defend the country and manage the economy.

 

Only a populace that is lied to constantly would even consider electing that good-ol' boy.

 

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT YOUR COUNTRY, OR ANY OTHER EUROPEAN NATION HAS A MORE HONEST MEDIA, OR A LESS GULLIBLE POPLACE?!

I think the proof is that all the polls show that our nation largely dislikes our government and leadership, and hates the war in Iraq. Our media has been staunchly critical of our government and our prime-minister, and has disclosed many details regarding the war that seem to be absent from your media's schedule. It has given far more balanced focus to both pro-war and anti-war spokespeople.

 

Frankly the tone is less one-sided in my country. That's my proof.

 

stated that my intention was not to offend. Having said this, if you decide that you are still offended, then you've made a choice.

Oh of course. You can be patronising to people, because if they're offended by the insulting childishness, it's THEIR CHOICE. Makes perfect sense.

 

I win. You lose. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

Socrates himself would crumble under the weight of such irrefutable, 100% supported logic.