Skip to main content

View Diary: Fox News wins in court (429 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Libel, Slander, and Fraud (4+ / 0-)
    are illegal.  Good god man use you head! - yes the courts are very concerned with standards of "truth".
    •  those standards are very different for the (0+ / 0-)

      press. it is a very high bar for the media, just look at the very few law suits against bad reporting have been filed let alone won. celebrities have been trying to argue this for years with little success.

      To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

      by Tanya on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:19:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they deliberately (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, Dauphin, drbloodaxe

        report information they knew to be false, 'free press' standards should not apply.
        They are no longer acting as press, but as public relations. There's a huge difference there. The key is the intent. The press should be protected from honest mistakes, not from deliberate falsehoods.

        •  "Reckless disregard for the truth"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...has always been one standard for libel, I believe. There is also "actual malice."

          What this ruling seems to be saying is that the former is OK, as long as it flatters the subject, anyway. I can't imagine a Rethug court saying it would be OK to broadcast damaging falsehoods about Monsanto.

          The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

          by expatjourno on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps we should go with fraud, since (0+ / 0-)

            Fox News has been deliberately lying to cover Monsanto's despicable practices. What is such a cover-up, such conning of the general public but a fraud?

            Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

            by Dauphin on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:21:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Time to get rid of the actual malice part n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

            by drbloodaxe on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:45:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  depends on the "object of the libel/slander" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            i.e. whether the person is "public or private figure" and whether the "statement" references either a "private matter or a matter of public concern."  The standard is "malice" for libelous/slanderous statements targeting "public figures and matters of public concern" and "negligence" when it concerns private figures on private matters.  That's basically the standard but with a few permutations.

            At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

            by rrheard on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Those are very specific cases (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagebrush Bob

      Here are a couple examples of the more general case of which I'm speaking:

      "We are winning the war in Iraq."

      "There is no winning the war in Iraq."

      Do you really want the government to be in a position to determine which of those is "Truth"?

      •  Except in this "specific case" (3+ / 0-)
        where scientific and provable facts are the subject matter.  We're not talking political opinion here, and yes- I want the government to be in a position to determine matters of truth where health and the public welfare are concerned.
        It's the FCC we're talking about- or does that now stand for the False Communications Commission?
        •  OK (0+ / 0-)

          yes- I want the government to be in a position to determine matters of truth

          I differ.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I consider a government agency in charge of what can be reported as Truth, a Ministry of Truth if you will,  to be doubleplusungood.  But, based on the responses to this diary, that's just me. Everyone else seems to favor one.

          •  Follow-up question (0+ / 0-)

            Who do you think will dominate and control this proposed Ministry of Truth?  I suggest it would be controlled by wealthy and powerful special interst groups that can afford to maintain large teams of lobbyists and finance think tanks  to establish official governmental "Truth': that are in accord with their financial and political intersts.  Not that anything in DC has EVER been known to work that way.

          •  So then... (0+ / 0-)

            There should be no repercussions if, perhaps, Fox News went on air saying that Iran bombed New York while KNOWING it not to be true?

            That's what a decision like yours would allow, it seems.

            Zapp Brannigan: Stop exploding, you cowards!

            by LnGrrrR on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:30:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing the point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, Hey BB, foreign noise

        Fox says it's OK to broadcast falsehoods and does not dispute that that's what they were doing. The court wasn't asked to determine truth or falsehood.

        Moreover, as people have pointed out ad infinitum, there are laws against publishing/printing damaging falsehoods about an individual or company. Always have been.

        The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

        by expatjourno on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:46:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hardly missing the point (0+ / 0-)

          I don't want a Ministry of Truth.  Very simple notion.  Remember, when the Bill of Rights was composed, our contemporary idea of "objective" "professional" journalism didn't exist, the entire American press was completely tendentious and the whole idea of "freedom of the press" was taht citizens could use their own brains and read a variety of sources in order to determine what was true and what was bogus.  Now ap[parently there's some stampede on here at daiykos in exactly the opposite direction, one that is inimical to fundamental liberties, American tradition, and given the relative power of corporate interest in Dc now and forever, hardly advantageous to progressive points o view.  I keep asking, who do YOU think will control a US Government Ministry of Truth?  I say it's wealthy powerful special interests with armies of hired lobbyists, just like the ones who control everything else in DC.  I find it stunningly jaw-droppingly naive that anyone thinks there could possibly be any other outcome of such a bureaucracy in capitalist America.

          •  there's a big difference that 200 years makes... (0+ / 0-)

            For instance, nuclear missiles...

            Given your idea, it would be perfectly fine for a news agency to come on the air saying that there was a chemical attack, and to leave your homes and head to the nearest shelter, with no repercussions.

            Is it your belief that there should be NO laws whatsoever like this? No libel, slander, etc etc?

            You make it seem like lobbyists aren't trying to distort the truth right NOW.

            If a media company deceives the public KNOWINGLY, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

            Zapp Brannigan: Stop exploding, you cowards!

            by LnGrrrR on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:33:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Libel. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre. (0+ / 0-)

            Fraud. False advertising. There have always been certain restrictions on free speech. Always. No Ministry of Truth involved.

            Here we have a network that isn't even contesting that it wanted to broadcast falsehoods. It is asserting its right to broadcast falsehoods, on public airwaves, which, incidentally, it is licensed to use "in the public interest."

            The truth doesn't need a noise machine. It just needs people who will stand up for it.

            by expatjourno on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Science (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Spam (21)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • International (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site