Reply With QuoteDidn't the courts recently rule the media could legally lie or distort information?
...oh yeah, "I quit!"
Dan Rather:
"EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of do ents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the do ents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these do ents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the do ents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the do ents in question.
But we did use the do ents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Didn't the courts recently rule the media could legally lie or distort information?
Not that I'm aware of. But, if they did, what's the point in watching the news?
They did, it was posted in here like a week ago
Didn't the courts recently rule the media could legally lie or distort information?
One has to wonder why he's stonewalled so much. Perhaps it was because simply of his ego and/or flickering hope that there was a version of MS Word available back in 1972.
Was Burkett really Rather's "unimpeachable source"? That seems a bit much, even for him to claim.
Fl Appellate Court Rules
Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
SierraTimes.com
3-1-3
On February 14, 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 do ented 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.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
Legal or not, CBS News has taken a huge hit over this fiasco. Apparently viewers are not pleased with 'fake, but accurate and legal' journalism.
Have another sip of the Kool-Aid.
If it's good enough for Fox, then why not CBS?
Damn, I thought you were joking.
Too bad there are not good reporters like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley or Harry Reasoner.
Men you could trust.
When did Fox News air an investigative report slamming a presidential candidate based on fake do ents?
Also, I have no connection with Fox News whatsoever. So what the **** is your point?
Who cares what the story is? the point is it's legal for media to lie on purpose, which is sad in itself...i bring up Fox because they are the ones who won that lawsuit, not because i said you watched it you ignorant dolt
Again, the legality does not matter. There does exist some notion of journalistic ethics which CBS News clearly has failed to meet.
Kiddo, if anyone is an ignorant dolt it is who you see in the mirror every morning.
did you even read the article? Fox KNEW it was putting out a lie, but argued it was their right to do so and the courts agreed...how is that so hard to understand? it doesnt matter what the story is, it can be a huge whopper, or something very insignificant and small.Again, the legality does not matter. There does exist some notion of journalistic ethics which CBS News clearly has failed to meet.
actually, it only takes one reading of your posts to hand you that crownKiddo, if anyone is an ignorant dolt it is who you see in the mirror every morning
In addition, a media outlet may lie about the news but that does not mean they have no legal liability for false reports. I'll defer to the attorneys who read this forum to address that.
Oh yeah, which one genius?actually, it only takes one reading of your posts to hand you that crown
you dont need any attorneys when the court has already ruled on the matter...just in case you dont know, judges >> lawyers
Go back and read what the court actually ruled on, "ignorant dolt."
i did...you obviously didnt, since you had no idea what i was referring to when i mentioned Fox...yawn
:next3
Ever hear of libel law?
is Bush going to sue CBS for libel?
If he wanted to he certainly could. Game over, dumbass.
of course he could, thats not in question...would he win? probably not, given the court ruling...and we have come full circle
Um, no. Bush would need to prove that harm accrued to him due to the intentional 'fake but accurate' actions of CBS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions