Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All you8 have to do is lok at teh Westmoreland case to see what the courts said about news oragnizations that print fasle stories that they knew where false. Its a very high standard to sue and get money from the media.
I am thinking instead of money, if a news corp has shown repeatedly to misrepresent the truth, it no longer be allowed to call itself a news corp.
I'm with those here who have suggested that we the viewing (reading, listening) public have a role to play in this, by being selective about which media outlets we patronize. There's no need to be hypthetical with some example about a reporter making insinuations about who is responsible for the darkness every night. We have a real live example we can consider, from just a few years ago. Anyone remember a moderately well known newscaster by the name of Rather? Huge figure in the news. Gone. Boom. Just like that. Why? Because CBS gave a damn about their reputation. Why? Becuase the viewing public gave a damn about integrity on the evening news. Without the understanding that they just might have lost quite a good percentage of their viewers by standing pat, CBS would have had far less incentive to dump their superstar.
I'm with those here who have suggested that we the viewing (reading, listening) public have a role to play in this, by being selective about which media outlets we patronize. There's no need to be hypthetical with some example about a reporter making insinuations about who is responsible for the darkness every night. We have a real live example we can consider, from just a few years ago. Anyone remember a moderately well known newscaster by the name of Rather? Huge figure in the news. Gone. Boom. Just like that. Why? Because CBS gave a damn about their reputation. Why? Becuase the viewing public gave a damn about integrity on the evening news. Without the understanding that they just might have lost quite a good percentage of their viewers by standing pat, CBS would have had far less incentive to dump their superstar.
not all news organizations seem to follow that example. some seem to thrive on misinformation and outright lies.
And, for whatever reason, their viewers cant get enough...
What newscaster made an uncorroborated statement and got away with it?
Heres an example
"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."
A federal court already ruled that any news organization can flat out lie, if they feel like it.
Personally, I think there should be a law passed against that. However, how do you determine it is a lie? It would be very hard to legislate that.
Guys like Keith Olberman, Bill O'reily, Glenn Beck, and many others on the cable news networks are opinion shows. They aren't news, at all. So they can spout out whatever nonsense they want, and if someone feels the need to watch a glorified soap opera, so be it.
I do think that the regular news on cable and on networks should be prohibited from lying. Of course, many of them already get around that by having "analysts" come on, and spout their opinion during the news.
Either way you look at it, cable news is just bogus. I don't watch it, unless there is a major disaster or something similar.
Others have it right, watch PBS, watch the evening news, those are the two best sources out there right now.
Butteh westmoreland suit brought to light just how hard it is to actaully do anyhting. The jusry found that CBS lied;that they knew they lied but saw no real damage ;so they didn't have to pay. It did nowever ruin many careers such as Rathers once the details got out as to the extent of what was done to slander Westmoreralnd. In fact it actually caused a major downturn in the Big 3 networks viewership and now people looked at the major media.But it also opened up the media to running more risky views of the newson both sides. Now days its like you can get whatever slnat to many stories you want or not have to see stories just by picking channels. The good part is that their is less of just one view as in the past.It also lead tot eh many things being revealed on many people that were admired but shielded by media in the past because they believed in their agenda.
There will never be any penalties enforced for true information in the media, save for the self enforced standards of the company. People have the choice of reading and believing lies to their hearts content, which is why people tune into political pundits and fall for their partisan lies constantly.
It's part of the reason I think many people are so disillusioned with politics and current events now then in many previous time frames. Many people want to believe aggrandized lies that support their position and discount their opponents to such a degree that true, fair, and balanced sources are no longer considered worth much to many of the vocal extremists. So the silent majority often just get burned out getting frustrated in dealing with people who crow their own promotion of truth and slough their insults and hatred on their opponents based on lies or propaganda. Then many just get on with their own lives hoping the extremists at least balance each other out.
Here in the United States we have the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. The original post ignores this fact, as well as the fact that in most cases it will be difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively determine whether a statement is true or false, much less whether it is a lie, a misinterpretation, an honest mistake, a false statement made in reasonable reliance on someone else's statement.
As has been said before, the best response to speech is more speech.
Assuming you know the difference between news shows and opinion shows, what big new federal government organization are you willing to pay for, through your taxes, to police the news shows?
I don't know if we need a big new governmental organization. Everybody slammed Dan Rather, other tv stations. I think that there has been a huge loss of of integrity in journalism. Over the years the public has requested less human interest stories and more world stories, and tv stations and papers continue on the same path. Would we trust a Federal oversight program not to operate in its own interest?
The scary part is that these people also control publishing companies. I think it is a constant struggle to obtain viable sources in the media at this point. I also think that that this puts the onus on us to actively seek information or as close to the truth as we can get.
Dan Rather and the Westmoreland cases involved CBS but has there ever been similar cases involving ABC or NBC? I searched this but found next to nothing. I do remember when Wayne Newton sued NBC for libel because the network according to Wayne tried to link him to crime but Wayne ended up losing the case. In the 70's I can remember when TV hosts ( NBC's Real People ) John Barbour and the late Skip Stevenson sued ABC for lying and stealing mainly over the show "That's Incredible" and not only was that thrown out of court but Barbour himself actually later on went to work for ABC-TV even though that didn't last.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
