snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08 January 2008, 11:33 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,346
Soapbox Fox News can lie!

Comment: Got the following email today. Was wondering how accurate the
information is.

Subject: FOX can Legally Lie

FOX News has legally argued in court that they have the right to LIE and
OBFUSCATE and won!

NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF
TAMPA, INC., versus JANE AKRE Case No. 2D01-529.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publi...s/2005/11.html

This is interesting and SCAREY!

Excerpt below:

"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.

"Fox" 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."

Please go to link above and read whole story if you're concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09 January 2008, 12:05 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,469
Default

Fox does lie but any news organization may lie.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09 January 2008, 11:03 AM
Lancastrian's Avatar
Lancastrian Lancastrian is offline
 
Join Date: 17 March 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 380
Default

Is the person who wrote the OP under the impression news orginazations are under legal obligation to tell the truth?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09 January 2008, 12:55 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara@home View Post
Fox does lie but any news organization may lie.
Indeed. Anyone can lie all they want. It may not be ethical, but it is not illegal. Now when it gets to slander or defamation of character, things change. You can easily get sued civilly for that.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09 January 2008, 01:58 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,117
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Indeed. Anyone can lie all they want. It may not be ethical, but it is not illegal.
It may not be in the best interests of the company that claims to be fair and balanced, and it violates all journalistic standards to simply make NFBSK up, but Fox does not have to tell the truth legally. I doubt they ever had to tell the truth legally (subject to slander laws, of course, as you point out).

The e-mail headline is misleading for that reason -- Fox didn't win any legal right. They always had it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10 January 2008, 12:49 AM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,220
Default

Is there any kind of "trade description act" that applies, though? Which is to say, you can lie on the public airwaves, but once you promise your viewers that you are telling the truth, then you are failing to fulfill your end of the business arrangement if you don't. Or, since for public broadcast, since the viewers aren't actually paying (directly), there isn't any "business" or trade between the broadcaster and the public?

--Logoboros
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10 January 2008, 01:58 AM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
It may not be in the best interests of the company that claims to be fair and balanced,
Correct. Thats why I said that it was unethical.

Quote:
The e-mail headline is misleading for that reason -- Fox didn't win any legal right. They always had it.
I wasn't arguing that at all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10 January 2008, 02:09 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
Is there any kind of "trade description act" that applies, though? Which is to say, you can lie on the public airwaves, but once you promise your viewers that you are telling the truth, then you are failing to fulfill your end of the business arrangement if you don't. Or, since for public broadcast, since the viewers aren't actually paying (directly), there isn't any "business" or trade between the broadcaster and the public?

--Logoboros
In theory, broadcasters are required to act in the community interest as part of their license agreement.

In truth...I think this case was more of a personnel issue, and a very poorly written judicial opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10 January 2008, 02:48 AM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,117
Frying Pan

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
I wasn't arguing that at all.
I was. It's not always about you.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10 January 2008, 03:32 AM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
I was. It's not always about you.
It really should be. And it will when I become Emperor of the World(TM)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10 January 2008, 08:09 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
It really should be. And it will when I become Emperor of the World(TM)
We now have three declared candidates here....

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10 January 2008, 09:32 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 8,837
Default

Very well, who gets the first primary?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11 January 2008, 03:20 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 2,338
Default Not only can they lie, they are believed!

http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/207...ievability.cfm

I have some serious mistrust of this survey, since Sacred Heart University must be a Catholic school. Those surveyed declared they trusted Fox News most.

GAAACK


Ali "need new whisky recommendations" Infree
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12 January 2008, 04:14 AM
Recklessmess Recklessmess is offline
 
Join Date: 07 January 2003
Location: Newark, NJ
Posts: 707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
It may not be in the best interests of the company that claims to be fair and balanced, and it violates all journalistic standards to simply make NFBSK up, but Fox does not have to tell the truth legally. I doubt they ever had to tell the truth legally (subject to slander laws, of course, as you point out).

The e-mail headline is misleading for that reason -- Fox didn't win any legal right. They always had it.
Even more so, the press is the only industry in the country that is constitutionally protected.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13 January 2008, 08:49 PM
BrokenBiscuit BrokenBiscuit is offline
 
Join Date: 31 October 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
Is the person who wrote the OP under the impression news orginazations are under legal obligation to tell the truth?
I don't know about the OP, but I was! I'm genuinely shocked. Now that I think about it I understand why news sites aren't a special case, but it feels wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14 January 2008, 12:45 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Temple View Post
Very well, who gets the first primary?
We will have to sort that out when they allow elections for Emperor. Unfortunately, nobody seems to really like that idea when you ask 'em.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 30 January 2008, 11:48 PM
Grendel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In Canada, "spreading false news" used to be a crime, but the Supreme Court struck that section down as being contrary to the Charter of Rights. The case was taken to the S.C.C. by Ernst Zundel, a Nazi sympathizer, who had been distributing a booklet called Did Six Million Really Die?. He was acquitted of spreading false news, but convicted of publishing hate literature, which was upheld as constitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 31 January 2008, 06:41 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 2,338
Icon204

What really troubles me is that there were five amicus briefs filed by media holding companies supporting Fox. Specifically, they were concerned that, " The station [the sued Fox station] argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial
product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim."

So, the media companies don't want to present facts that may affect commercial (read: advertising) interests withoiut a defense.

And here I thought that the truth was a defense.

Ali "silly me" Infree
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.