FOX admits they lie?

[Ms Tree]

I was just surfing the net and I found this.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Do a web search and over 2,000 hits come up so take your pick. I get that there is no obligation to tell the truth on TV. There is nothing in the COTUS dealing with truth so I think the court of appeals did the right thing.

The part I do not understand is a new organization getting up in open court and arguing before the country that they can lie if they want to and it's perfectly legal. I understand saying that if we broadcast something that to the best of our knowledge is true but later turns out to be false that they should not be held liable but to go in front of a court and say that we can knowing tell a lie and there is not a damn thing you can do about it is a bit odd. Especially for a organization that claims to be "Fair and Balanced" as part of their mantra.

What is also interesting is that the following media companies filed briefs of Amici Curiae on behalf of FOX:

Belo Corporation
Cox Television, Inc.
Gannett Co., Inc.
Media General Operations, Inc.
Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc


Does anyone know how to find transcripts of this case? I've been looking and cannot find it. I am hoping there is something in the actual transcripts to explain this and that the media just picked the parts they liked. Seems odd for FOX to fight a $500k judgement (not a lot of money for them) and go in front of court and admit that they lie on purpose.

I also wonder if politicians have taken this to heart. I am willing to guess Bachmann knows she is lying about the $2 gas. Obama knew he was lying about the troops and Gitmo. Lies are perfectly acceptable and legal. How wonderful.

 

[delldude]

Damn....you're making me proud, Son.........

I'd imagine you can lie all you want but the fine line between liable and slander is what matters.

I figured ONLY Fox would stoop to these tactics.....ask Dan Rather or the DNC.

 

[Ms Tree]

You are missing the point as usual. You do not find it odd that a news organization would go on record stating that they can and do lie on a regular basis and there is no legal prohibition against it?

I have never taken anything I read at face value. I always try and research it to the best of my ability and still assume it is a lie till proven other wise. This is an organization that has "fair and Balanced" as their mantra and they went to court to prove that they are not and are not legally bound to do so.

The fact that 5 other news providers filed briefs on FOX's behalf is also worrisome. I did find it humorous that when doing a search, none of the major MSM had a story about it.

 

[dapoes]

 

[eolesen]

The fact that 5 other news providers filed briefs on FOX's behalf is also worrisome. I did find it humorous that when doing a search, none of the major MSM had a story about it.

Maybe that's because the liberal MSM didn't want to be on record as agreeing with Fox...

Oh, and I see it, Fox didn't actually admit they lie. They simply argued (successfully) that spin isn't a crime.

 

[Ms Tree]

Maybe that's because the liberal MSM didn't want to be on record as agreeing with Fox...

Oh, and I see it, Fox didn't actually admit they lie. They simply argued (successfully) that spin isn't a crime.

By filing briefs on behalf of FOX they are on record as siding with FOX. They are all on record.

You are more than welcome to interpret it any way you see fit.

 

[SparrowHawk]

By filing briefs on behalf of FOX they are on record as siding with FOX. They are all on record.

You are more than welcome to interpret it any way you see fit.

This isn't a car wreck, no need to slow down and gawk, it's a fender bender move on.

You show me a news outlet that doesn't embellish, fabricate, spin, distort or otherwise and I'll show you a media company headed for bankruptcy ala Al Franken and Air America. Look at Jon Stewart's piece on Ron Paul below as it's a great example of how the media trys to influence many things, an election this time.

 

[Ms Tree]

embellish, fabricate, spin, distort

I think there is a very distinct line between what you mention above and lying. I believe there is an intent associated with lying that is not so with the others.

Then there is the distinction between what we as the public believe to be true and news out lets coming out and confirming what we believe to be true. What happened in my opinion is that news organizations who are banking on the credibility have come out and admitted that they are not credible.

While I do not think any of the typical news sources are credible, at least 6 of them have confirmed by their own admission that they are not credible and can no longer legitimate argue that they are.

 

[Veritas]

Does anyone know how to find transcripts of this case?

I doubt that you can find the trial and/or appeals court hearing transcripts anywhere on the web, however, the opinion of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, is available on Google Scholar.

 

[Ms Tree]

I doubt that you can find the trial and/or appeals court hearing transcripts anywhere on the web, however, the opinion of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, is available on Google Scholar.

I had seen bits and pieces of that but not the entirety of it. Thanks for the link. I really want to see FOX's argument on this. Everything I have seen so far seems to indicate that they are saying it is not against the law for them t lie (which it is not) and that they never refuted any of the claims that Akre made in her lawsuit

 

[Dog Wonder]

It only matters what Fox says if you actually watch Fox.

 

[delldude]

You are missing the point as usual. You do not find it odd that a news organization would go on record stating that they can and do lie on a regular basis and there is no legal prohibition against it?

I have never taken anything I read at face value. I always try and research it to the best of my ability and still assume it is a lie till proven other wise. This is an organization that has "fair and Balanced" as their mantra and they went to court to prove that they are not and are not legally bound to do so.

The fact that 5 other news providers filed briefs on FOX's behalf is also worrisome. I did find it humorous that when doing a search, none of the major MSM had a story about it.

Why did they go on record in the first place is the key question.

 

[Ms Tree]

From the argument in the case they did not seem to have a choice. The plaintiff was arguing for protection as a whistle blower. The court from what I have read stated that the guidelines for the media were not adopted as law so the new out let technically did not violate the law so the whistle lowers could not use the protection. FOX had to argue that lying was not against the law. The fact that they did lie was not at issue in the case. FOX. Was arguing that they could lie till the sun came up and it was not illegal.

As far as I am aware they never argued or even stated that they did not lie or encourage the reporters to lie.

 

[delldude]

It only matters what Fox says if you actually watch Fox.

You missed the boat on this:

The fact that 5 other news providers filed briefs on FOX's behalf is also worrisome. :blink:

 

[delldude]

So you don't like "fair and balanced'??

Maybe CBS has what you want at their online store........

Obama Spoken Here

Or do you like NBC?

And here: