I forget the thread... It was about something else but the conversation in some sub-thread went off into it and had some good links... It's just stunning that this is allowed.

Misinformation is a key word to describe Fake News ....

to My Favorite Wingnut yesterday when he emailed me some Fox drivel.

And hey, welcome back!

We've been talking about you while you've been incommunicado, you know. We've decided to draft you and run you for political office.

... lots o' links to this here.

Court orders don't simply allow general conduct. Court orders direct a party to do something very specific or to refrain from doing something very specific. And failure to comply can result in imprisonment, which is why the orders are specific.

Maybe Fox or someone got a court ruling that the First Amendment protects an entity like Fox from prosecution for certain things. And, a ruling of the FCC that is inconsistent with the First Amendment would be invalid.

I don't like Fox, but I don't hate it enough to wish away more First Amendment protections for everyone. IMO, they've been diminished enough as it is.

2003 court decision siding with plaintiff (Fox) that successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a law, rule, or regulation.

So in effect, the court did in fact, give Fox (and all other media outlets) the green light to lie.

I never said there is no court ruling that extends First Amendment protection to Fox and others. I said there is no such thing as a court order allowing someone to lie.

The gist of both are the same...

Although I imagine one could analyze differences irrelevant to both informal conversations and the premise of the OP.


How do I think? Goodness... such a question (lighten up, Francis).

very funny comedy routine based on the fact that "How are you doing?" was a deep philosophical question. I suspect the where was either TV or You Tube. Wish I could remember whom.

I am not prosecuting the graphic.

It held that the First Amendment protected anything short of an intentional lie, done in bad faith.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but the rationale was that people make themselves public figures and therefore sort of fair game, when they seek public attention. That case involved the NYT, but I know of no case that holds that the NYT or any publication has greater first amendment rights than you and I. (Since wikileaks and Manning, the D of J, Obama and some Senators have been trying to say some publishers have greater First Amendment rights than others, but that, IMO, is just wrong--and unnecessary. Manning is, after all, in prison.)

Later, the holding was extended to the divorce of a very wealthy couple--the Pulitzers, I think, even though they had supposedly done all they could to keep their proceedings private. (I am not sure if the Pulitzer case got to the SCOTUS or if a lower court did the extending.)

The case you describe sounds more like an attempt to see if the current SCOTUS will overrule the intentional lie portion of the New York Times case than it does an attempt to put a novel question before the court. But, that is just my prism.

Fair and Balanced! They are fair to the stockholders. They are fair to their paymasters. I remember HEE HAWing at seeing that stupid term...Fair and Balanced and then their ONE TOKEN liberal (that let Hannity wipe the deck with his face almost every episode) Colmes? Cholmes?

Anyhow...Foxnews reports, you decides.

Colmes left FOX around the time of Obama's first inauguration. They may have another token liberal now. If so, I don't know the name.

I could not agree more as to corporate news. Certainly, FOX is among the worst, if not the worst. However, they are all propagandists to one degree or another and with one degree of obviousness or another. The most dangerous, in my opinion, are the ones who are more subtle about it, like Russert (the elder), Lauer, et al.

With them, people can be lulled into believing they are getting objectivity. With any of the more obvious, such as CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and even my favorite political comedy shows (Daily and Colbert), you at least know up front that you are getting one point of view for the most part. (And if you don't know, that's on you.)

One nice thing about having the internet and three monitors, something is always on one...just a few weeks ago I was on a MST3k kick and watching about 20 episodes.

I just don't miss TVEE or cable at all and the thing I miss the LEAST is the M$M. Really...I gave up on corporate news when I found DU over 10 years ago. LBN and GD are so full of current events, that you could spend all day reading the news.

Need a break? Laugh at something in the Lounge.

Respect.

I agree that LBN is great. I am not at DU every day, though. In case of news withdrawal, I also have on my toolbar links to (in alphabetical order--sort of), Al Jazeera America, AP, Reuters and UPI in one batch, and ABC News, CNN, CBS News, NBC News and MSNBC in the other batch. I know there are a lot of good outlets with a leftist take on events, but I use these to find out what is going out there. Then, I can go to other outlets to read or hear how the stories are being dissected.

But found articles by them posted on DU so much, just kinda started using it to search the news.

I just don't know...I hate Foxnews.

We need to start firing folks, just as any other employer would do.

They appeal to a demographic that's fading into obsolescence. My age group won't be around forever. We'll eventually wind up in nursing homes or tits up and they're not attracting younger viewers. The entire Republican Party isn't attracting younger people. Too many Americans are tech savvy and getting their news from the internet and entertainment venues like the Daily Show. I give them ten years more and they'll be on life support.

I view most of the mainstream media as "entertainment" rather than news but I didn't know they had actually gone to court over it.

of Fox News, not the cable station. You can find references to it on Wikipedia if you google.

the background that led to the decision.

Here's some more info:

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

TAMPA—Two award-winning investigative reporters at the Fox-owned television station in Tampa are blowing the whistle on a story they say WTVT (Ch 13) and its corporate bosses preferred to coverup rather than broadcast honestly and accurately.

The story, documented in a lawsuit the reporters filed Thursday, reveals the widespread use of a controversial bovine growth hormone Florida dairymen have been secretly injecting into their cows.

~snip~

The reporters also provided details of their suit which charges Fox television, strongly pressured by BGH-maker Monsanto, with violating the state’s whistleblower act by firing the journalists for refusing to broadcast false reports and threatening to report the station’s conduct to the FCC. Their complaint also claims the station violated the reporters’ contracts in dismissing them for those reasons and it seeks a ruling from the court to determine to what extent the reporters’ contractual obligations limit their ability to speak freely about the rBGH issue.

The journalists filed the suit after struggling with Fox executives most of last year to get the story on the air. According to court papers, they were ultimately dismissed December 2, 1997.

It is despicable that Fox does this. However, this is true for any news organization and Fox does not have a court order.
People can lie all they want. Once it gets into defamation and slander, then you are cutting it close to legal issues.
Fox needs no court order; they've always had the right, just like every other news organization.

In the "quote" in the OP is the word broadcast. Faux does not broadcast it is strictly a cable channel ( or satellite) and is not broadcasted over the publicly owned air waves. As such the FCC has quite limited power to regulate Faux, CNN, MSNBC and any subscriber provided content.

The Fairness Doctrine would hamstring Rush Limburger, Sean Slanthead and the like who are broadcasted through our airwaves. If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect they would be relegated to satellite radio which again is subscriber content and not freely available.

Even if it were in effect now.

To bring down their house of cards...probably armed insurrection they immediately caused. Just for once, I would love to see them make a blunder that would entirely ruin them financially. One huge freaking lawsuit that would break their backs.

They are choosing their kool-aide flavor. They could be presented with a boat load of facts & would still stick with their BELIEFS!

I read about a study where they discovered people are more inclined to believe a story they hear if they already suspected it. Such is the draw of conspiracy theories.

That seems obvious, but scientifically speaking, there's actually a part of your brain that lies to the rest of the gray matter. Drug addicts can be fooled by their own brain into believing it's just a good idea to venture into a crime ridden neighborhood three time a week where they can be assaulted or worse. It's not because they're physically addicted to crack.

I know this first hand from 20 some years ago when I rode that pony. I was shocked when I had to quit suddenly and went through withdrawal symptoms. I honestly didn't know I was addicted, and thought getting punched, shot at, and stealing money, was just part of my daily life. Though I had dreams about smoking crack and still tasted it for about a year, I never went back.

In the case of Fox News, I remember how many really believed that Romney would help create a strenghtened middle class with high paying jobs. They also believed he would win in a landslide right up until he conceded. The psychological withdrawal on that one must have been fucking brutal, but Fox News still passes them the pipe and assures them they're fine and the rest of the country is screwed up.

There is a book called "Trances People Live" by Stephen Wolinsky. It describes folks who think, feel & live with limited belief systems that are sometimes hard to break free from.
Some trances are not that bad or may even be beneficial like "kitten trances" or "dog trances". They focus our minds on sweet emotions and give us a break from the stress of our everyday lives. Mental & emotional health can be measured in one way by our ability to be flexible enough to move in & out of different trances. At work we are in our work trance, at home we are in our chill trance sometimes, shopping mall trances etc. Those who are fixated or lack flexibility have a very hard time adapting to the "here & now" which is always new!
Thank You for sharing some of Your story with us. I'm happy to know You are taking good care of Yourself now!

which doesn't even exist anymore. They had a video up on the court ruling and after awhile no more video. I tried to find the video again on youtube but noooo...long gone. But I did find this.

He added the dubious caveat that Fox has a separation between "hard news" programming during the day, and "Entertainment" programming like O'Reilly and Hannity in prime time.

He then went on to absurdly cite the rest of all media in the whole country as firmly devoted to extreme liberal causes.

No sympathy for Fox News, but this is misleading in several ways:

First, the lawsuit had NOTHING to do with Fox News: it had to do with a local Fox affiliate channel. Fox Broadcasting is run by Rupert Murdoch, not FNC head Roger Ailes.

Second, even if it DID involve Fox News, the claim would be misleading because FNC is a cable channel and not under the jurisdiction of FCC. And even if it was, would you want a Government agency deciding what "truth" was?

Third, the lawsuit had nothing to do with "lying"; it had to do with whether Florida State whistleblower provisions applied, not whether the station had a "right to lie".