3 ms·
The article is kind of all over the place. Let's see .. - It says one of the reasons is that people (Trump) threatened to "open up libel laws". Which, didn't h
by thegrim000 3y ago
The article is kind of all over the place. Let's see ..
- It says one of the reasons is that people (Trump) threatened to "open up libel laws". Which, didn't happen, but even if it did .. they "lost their nerve" because someone threatened that they'll actually be liable if they lie? Maybe if they didn't constantly lie they wouldn't have to worry about consequences for lying?
- It makes vague claims about how the news fears to say bad things about people/companies because they'll pull their support .. as if that wasn't always a thing? How about if they just do fair, impartial journalism, rather than biased political hit pieces? Then people wouldn't get so outraged and pull out of your platform?
- I like how it swaps around cause and effect. It argues that lawyers suing media organizations have become more common, and so they've "lost their nerve" as an effect. No ... it's the other way around .. media organizations becoming absolute trash, biased, profit seeking, propaganda peddlers have resulted in them being sued more often.
- thfuran 3y ago>someone threatened that they'll actually be liable if they lie? Maybe if they didn't constantly lie they wouldn't have to worry about consequences for lying? The libel laws are already such that they're liable for damages caused by lying. "Opening up the libel laws" would presumably entail incurring liability for printing inconvenient truths.