Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

This is news?

We have laws against actionable sorts of lying anyway. Libel, slander and fraud all still apply. For things that aren't actionable it probably doesn't make a difference.

The Giver would probably say that the vast left-wing media conspiracy has been lying for years anyway.

I'd say that journalistic ethics are instilled in media professionals in their education. Some take that very seriously and some don't, just like those who learn any other kind of ethics.
 
Mercutio said:
I'd say that journalistic ethics are instilled in media professionals in their education. Some take that very seriously and some don't, just like those who learn any other kind of ethics.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Merc. Law or no law, journalistic integrity lies with the media professionals. If they choose to lie, the consequences are on their shoulders. If I were a journalist, I would feel a responsibility for accurate reporting. But that doesn't mean someone else would feel this way. They might be out for the glory of the sensationalized story, or may not care about their integrity.

And the ruling is not a surprise. We see legal loopholes all the time. Because legislation regarding the distortion of the news is a "policy" and not a hard and fast "law," Fox was able to, after several attempts, get their case reversed. How many times have we seen this scenario regarding other court cases. I'm not saying that I agree with the ruling, just that it's no big shocker.

As intellectual beings, we must realize that one single media outlet is not a viable source for our information. Looking at this court ruling, it is clear that we are not always being fed true and correct information. We have to learn to question what we think is questionable, not accept it for fact. I think we have seen the media distort the news for a long time. It is important to seek understanding from several sources, and then make educated conclusions based on these sources.
 
I agree with the decision. That doesn't mean I agree with news organizations deliberately lying to the public. But if there is no law against it - there is no law against it. In this case the court decided the case based on the existing law, rather than attempting to write new law itself. That's what courts are supposed to do.
 
Tea,

Law and justice are two VERY different things. I always try to be just, but I don't give a damn about the law. When the law doesn't agree with my sense of justice, it just has to explain itself with my biceps.

The court decision was probably right according to the law, but it also probably wasn't just. I despise lawyers, judges, policemen and who ever else who thinks to represent some sort of autority. The worst part is when I think about all the money people give in form of taxes for those bastards. Looking at the result (all the abuses and unfair matters that people in power can do legally), what a waste it is. Pityful.
 
Tea said:
Zo you approve of the reporter being zacked for being honezt? Thiz iz juztice?
Click to expand...
I never said it was justice - only that is was legal. It is admirable that the reporter refused to violate her ethics. But as is often the case, doing the right thing does not mean you aren't going to kicked in the balls.

I suspect the other major news organizations will be anxious to hire her so that they can trot her out on stage any time they wish to slap Fox in the face.
 
I find myself shocked and delighted to agree with The Giver on this one, there really is a first time for everything. The courts are there to apply the law, not to make it. If, as I believe in this case, that law has sod all to do with justice, it its the duty and responsibility of government to amend the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top