4 ms·

> Just remember, in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that it's legal for news publications to lie to their readers/viewers. Link please?

by GuiA 9y ago

sschueller 9y ago
Isn't that ruling just allowing news stations to segment certain time frames as news and others as entertainment? They still can't make stuff up during news segments.
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  No, I don't think that's it. I think OP is referring to "NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN" where the Supreme Court placed the bar of something being libel as the accused having 'actual malice' which is in itself is somewhat slipperly defined as having knowledge that they were lying, or recklessly not investigating what they were publishing.
  - Lazare 9y ago
    I dunno if that's what OP meant or not, but either way I'd note the actual malice standard only applies to public officials and public figures, which is defined fairly narrowly. I certainly don't think that qualifies as a decision that "the news media can lie". In fact, to the extent you can prove the news media was lying in a report about a public figure (that is, the news media published something they knew to be false), that's explicitly covered. That's the opposite of what OP claimed.
ceejayoz 9y ago
Sounds like a variant on this urban legend: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/10/...
jws 9y ago
Frequently this is a reference to a suit between a Fox affiliate station and a pair of their reporters who were terminated amid editorial conflicts and whistleblower actions. It is a complicated suit with a number of claims. There are enough bits which if extracted and held up alone can support the grandparent's claim, but on a whole doesn't really say that. It is a bit hard to google about because a lot of the people who choose to write about it are partisan, but you can get a feel for the mess in the Snopes article†. As with lots of law, part of it turns on technical definitions. The Appeals Court (not Supreme) found that the FCC policy against falsification did not meet the legal definition of "law, rule, or regulation" in a particular section of relevant law. Remember, three of those four quoted words probably don't mean what you think they do unless you are a legal scholar. It's like having a variable in a program named "loop_count". Maybe it is a count of the looping, maybe not, unless you read all the referencing code. The wikipedia article‡ is currently ok too, but who knows by the time you read it. † https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ ‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

> Just remember, in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that it's legal for news publications to lie to their readers/viewers. Link please?

by GuiA 9y ago

> Just remember, in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that it's legal for news publications to lie to their readers/viewers. Link please?

sschueller 9y ago

Isn't that ruling just allowing news stations to segment certain time frames as news and others as entertainment? They still can't make stuff up during news segments.

icegreentea2 9y ago
No, I don't think that's it. I think OP is referring to "NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN" where the Supreme Court placed the bar of something being libel as the accused having 'actual malice' which is in itself is somewhat slipperly defined as having knowledge that they were lying, or recklessly not investigating what they were publishing.
- Lazare 9y ago
  I dunno if that's what OP meant or not, but either way I'd note the actual malice standard only applies to public officials and public figures, which is defined fairly narrowly. I certainly don't think that qualifies as a decision that "the news media can lie". In fact, to the extent you can prove the news media was lying in a report about a public figure (that is, the news media published something they knew to be false), that's explicitly covered. That's the opposite of what OP claimed.

ceejayoz 9y ago

Sounds like a variant on this urban legend: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/10/...

jws 9y ago

Frequently this is a reference to a suit between a Fox affiliate station and a pair of their reporters who were terminated amid editorial conflicts and whistleblower actions. It is a complicated suit with a number of claims. There are enough bits which if extracted and held up alone can support the grandparent's claim, but on a whole doesn't really say that. It is a bit hard to google about because a lot of the people who choose to write about it are partisan, but you can get a feel for the mess in the Snopes article†. As with lots of law, part of it turns on technical definitions. The Appeals Court (not Supreme) found that the FCC policy against falsification did not meet the legal definition of "law, rule, or regulation" in a particular section of relevant law. Remember, three of those four quoted words probably don't mean what you think they do unless you are a legal scholar. It's like having a variable in a program named "loop_count". Maybe it is a count of the looping, maybe not, unless you read all the referencing code. The wikipedia article‡ is currently ok too, but who knows by the time you read it. † https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ ‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre