Media screws up again...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Live video feeds, eyewitness reports, photographs. Things the reporter
can't screw up.

That's somewhat naive. All the photographer has to do is point the camera
in the wrong direction, or mistate the environment surrounding the events
(say, for example, a firefight in Baghdad) and you have no idea what is
going on. "Your eyes can deceive you." - Obi Wan. :

Yes, I still subscribe to my local newspaper. I have dropped my
subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. My local
newspaper still has TV and movie listings, grocery coupons, various
flyers,
etc., so it is still worth receiving.

That is proactive and reasonable.

-c

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

not self-proclaimed experts.

Like YOU!!!!!

"gatt" wrote in message
...

That's somewhat naive.


No, it isn't.



All the photographer has to do is point the camera
in the wrong direction,


Then he won't have the intended photograph.



or mistate the environment surrounding the events
(say, for example, a firefight in Baghdad) and you have no idea what is
going on.


I trust the photographer to know his location.

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

Getting it wrong consistently and losing readers as a result tends to cost
the publication money as well.


Yep. That's why the tabloids have gone belly-up.

Jose

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

I get so tired of this bull**** and distorted story constantly coming up.

For starters, the Court didn't say that the station had a "right to lie",
they held that there was nothing in the FCC Regulations that required them
to tell the truth. But the "right to lie" angle is much sexier.

Next, the report eventually broadcast was not false. The report Ms. Akre
prepared utilized various questionable, activist type sources. Fox left out
some of the activists and obtained additional information from industry
sources. Quite probably, neither report was totally a lie, they simply used
differing sources to develop their conclusions. And frankly, given what I've
seen of "activists" lately, I would tend to believe an industry source over
and activist any day.

This was nothing more than an "unlawful termination" case but it seems to
have become a cause celebre for every nutcase on the block. Before you buy
into this crap, please take a look at the original court documents on this
case; believe me, you will get a totally different picture...



"leslie" wrote in message
...
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

gatt wrote:

Did they teach you the difference between aerodynamic
and mechanical stall in high school?

They taught me to write about what I know.



Jack

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
Here's the link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...94/detail.html

Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses everyday
words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
understood, why don't we just speak English?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:8Qqyc.11503$eu.989@attbi_s02...

Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses everyday
words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
understood, why don't we just speak English?


My English dictionary includes the definition "a condition in which an
aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss
of lift and a tendency to drop" for "stall".

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:8Qqyc.11503$eu.989@attbi_s02...

Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses
everyday
words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
understood, why don't we just speak English?

My English dictionary includes the definition "a condition in which an
aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in
loss
of lift and a tendency to drop" for "stall".

True, it's a recognized technical meaning. But it's still obscure and
confusing--especially since nothing in the dictionary lets anyone know that
the more common meaning (for an engine to stop inadvertently) is never used
by pilots with regard to an airplane's engine.

--Gary