PDA

View Full Version : Fox fought for the legal right to LIE!



paularoid
10-10-2006, 05:10 PM
http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/10/10/fox-fought-for-the-legal-right-to-lie/

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v25/paularoid/Misc/fauxnews.jpg

Only FOX, I swear. A station that says “we report, you decide” and that they are so “fair and balanced” seems to have a funny way of showing it. Namely, the fired some employees for refusing to air lies, and then successfully appealed a case against them for it. http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

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.

Now, the First Amendment, of course, protects freedom of the press with no clauses or asterisks. Legally, the media can say whatever they want. What’s most striking, though, is that this right was given to the press to prevent the government from forcing them to print falsehoods. The founding fathers wanted to guarantee that the media was allowed to print the truth, no matter how bad it is.

FOX, though, felt that it also means no one can stop them from just making stuff up. While technically right, it’s such a spit in the face of the spirit of our Bill of Rights that it actually makes my head hurt. The network that constantly cries about the liberal media distorting the news and being dishonest fought for the right to distort and be dishonest. Amazing.
.

hoops
10-10-2006, 05:17 PM
sounds foxy to me...all the news that's fit to make up and force down the throats of anyone who is weak enough to keep from vomiting as they watch
peace
hoops

Annie's Dad
10-10-2006, 05:25 PM
This kind of reminds me of Dan Rather's (Rathergate) Faux report (complete with bogus memo) about President Bush being AWAL. Or the AP deliberately distorting casualties in Iraq. Or Reuters staging photos using the same "dead" people in different bombing locations. Or the New York Times reporting AK-47s are turning the streets red with the blood of innocent children. Or.....Never mind.

DaveM
10-10-2006, 10:05 PM
I am reminded of Mark Twain's observation that there are things that are true, things that are not true, and things that are printed in newspapers. Mercifully for him, Twain did not live to see the arrival of television.

Bat
10-10-2006, 10:10 PM
This kind of reminds me of Dan Rather's (Rathergate) Faux report (complete with bogus memo) about President Bush being AWAL.

Strange, even though I don' t really believe half of what I hear, that story rang true...they just didn't have the stuff to back it up, for whatever reason.

Annie's Dad
10-10-2006, 10:20 PM
Strange, even though I don' t really believe half of what I hear, that story rang true...they just didn't have the stuff to back it up, for whatever reason.

"They," being Rather and his cronies at CBS, produced a memo that turned out to be bogus. The whole story was proven to be made up in a feeble attempt to smear Mr. Bush.


Best
Chris

DaveM
10-10-2006, 11:06 PM
If I recall correctly it was a group of rather obviously fraudulent documents which somehow were not recognized as such despite their obviously not having been written on a typewriter in 1972. The typeface was the default for Microsoft Works, there were superscripts, etc., etc.

I don't recall if the original source of the material was ever determined. It did occur to me at the time that the whole thing may have been an attempt by someone to "get" Dan Rather--certainly that proved to be the end result.

Must say that I hope what I see on the news is subjected to better fact-checking. But how can one ever know?

paularoid
10-11-2006, 12:55 AM
Do NOT forget the forged documents that got us into Iraq in the first place. NOBODY is clean when it comes to using "faulty" or "bogus" information. ALL sides are at fault in that department.
.

Dee
10-11-2006, 01:43 AM
I must admit that I miss the days of innocent trust in my government, even though I now realise I was living a false sense of security.

I find myself questioning nearly anything reported, and wonder when anything new pops up if it's not just arm waving to distract from what's really going on behind the scenes. So many times it seems that was the case.

Does this make me paranoid? Jaded? Or am I just ...

Suspicious Dee :cool:

What a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
There's nothing at all
But what a fool believes he sees ...
(Doobie Brothers)