Pilot's Political Orientation

Teacherjh ) wrote:
: They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports.
:
: They answer to the FCC in broadcasting for the public good (or something
: like that). Broadcasting falsities as true news would go against this
: and if enough happens the FCC could get interested.
:
: Jose
:

A Florida appellate court ruled that the media can legally lie.
Fox Television's attorneys argued that Fox's right to lie is
protected by Fox's First Ammendment rights:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."

The following article gives the story of how corporations came to have
"personhood":

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy,"


Slightly different from what I said. It might not be against the law (with
attendant consequences) but when license revision comes up for review, I don't
think the feds are prohibited from considering whether or not lying is in the
public good, which broadcasters promise to uphold in exchange for using the
(limited public) airwaves.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

But only to the extent needed to support government operations. The problem
is all this charity crap and illegal redistribution of our assets.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No originally.


Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion?
Or
is
that too a mistake?

The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of
money.

Why should the state be involved, either?

It's more local and that's how a lot of us fund education.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion?
Or
is
that too a mistake?

The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of
money.

Why should the state be involved, either?

It's more local and that's how a lot of us fund education.

You say that's what IS, but not why it should be that way (that government
be involved at all).

Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.



Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
have already been born?

-Doug

"none" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
that
have already been born?

-Doug


I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none wrote
in Message-Id: :



Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.



Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
have already been born?

-Doug

Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?


No.

Back in those radical '60s, I was in a debate on abortion. A bishop asked one
of the debaters, a young lady, when she was going to give up her heretical
stance on abortion.

The answer came back, quick as a wink, "When either you or the Pope gets
pregnant."

{;-)

Jim



"Peter Gottlieb"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-"none" wrote in message
.. .
-
- Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
-that
- have already been born?
-
- -Doug
-
-
-I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
-coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
-

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com