Media screws up again...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message news:40c92772$0$78545

Or pretty much anything on Fox...

"Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.


Rubbish.

gatt ) wrote:
:
: "Rich Ahrens" wrote in message news:40c92772$0$78545
:
: Or pretty much anything on Fox...
:
: "Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.
:
:

The media can legally lie...

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."


Fox, like Nike and other corporations, claims it has the right to lie
under its First Amendment protection, granted by a headnote of the 1886
U.S. Supreme Court.

The following article provides the background for the granting of personhood
to corporations:

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

AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations.

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

And that's why so many say the "news" and "entertainment" are so close as
to
be indistinguishable. See Michael Moore for a example.

If you cannot distinguish between Michael Moore and the news media you're
probably not qualified to comment on matters of media.

-c

in article t, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:

Getting the story is far more important than getting
the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article t, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:

Getting the story is far more important than getting
the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".


Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:NJcyc.438

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".

Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

Hearst was a newspaper icon. Bill Gates wasn't the entire software
industry, but he's more qualified to comment on the workings of the software
industry then, say, a pilot.

-c

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 6/10/04 11:57 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article t, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:

Getting the story is far more important than getting
the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".


Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

I'm not sure how in the world you came to that conclusion, because
absolutely nothing in my statement indicates that I believe that to be the
case.

The state of journalism in this country may be poor, but it's certainly not
helped by the state of reading comprehension.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 6/10/04 11:57 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article t, Steven
P.
McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:

Getting the story is far more important than getting
the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph
Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".


Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

I'm not sure how in the world you came to that conclusion, because
absolutely nothing in my statement indicates that I believe that to be the
case.

The state of journalism in this country may be poor, but it's certainly
not
helped by the state of reading comprehension.

Maybe if you understood that your alluding conduct of an entire industry to
a single individual?

Maybe if people had better WRITING comprehension, much less critical
thinking ability...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do
about
whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they
still
read the papers, still watch the news...

Yeah, but I read the papers and watch the news with the knowledge the
reporter probably got it wrong.

So why do you watch, then? Start your own news agency or simply don't
read/watch the news.

Lousy pilots weed themselves out eventually. Lousy reporters keep on
reporting.

And yet you keep on reading it.

-c