Skip to content or view screen version

Murdoch media has legal right to disinform

deen | 06.05.2003 08:30

...well, we already knew they do, but in a court case in the US, lawyers for Rupert Murdock successfully argued that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves." (Only one source on this news item found)

Quote:

"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 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."

I searched for other converage of this verdict on news.google.com and came up with... (well, try it yourself):
 http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=usa&q=%22Jane+Akre%22&btnG=Search+News

deen
- Homepage: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Are you different over there?

06.05.2003 12:33

In the US newspapers, etc. are seen as essentially POLITICAL organs. In other words, partisan to the political views of whoever controls them (the person or persons who are the publishers). The idea is that all the various political factions will have some papers supporting their positio, readers will decide which to read and whose version of truth to go by.

We do not ordinarily consider "political speech" to be subject to claims that it is or is not objective truth. Whatever THAT might mean. This case was not decided by saying "there is a right to lie" but that any claims about truth or untruth were irrelevant. In other words, the publisher need NOT justify his "take" on truth to anybody. Not so much a right to lie as an irrelevance of any claim that it IS a lie.

Before deciding that this is a bad concept please consider the following. Would you REALLY care to have to defend the version of "truth" published in some anti-capitalist "rag" in a capitalist court? Or does a pro-capitalist writer have some right to have his or her versions of truth printed in "The Workers World"?

Mike
mail e-mail: stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com

additional web stories

06.05.2003 14:10

Hi

When I did a goggle search using "Fox and Florida and February 2003" I came up with several web references among them are:

 http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Akre-Wilson-Pay-Fox7mar03.htm

 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/031303Varolli/031303varolli.html

 http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akre022603.cfm

 http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

Andrea pdx

Mike

07.05.2003 06:58

Political opinions have nothing to do with distorted facts.
My political opinion can differ from someone else, but facts should be truthful. It is our interpretation of the fact (or facts, the reason why that particular fact happened or didn't happen) that is our poltical analisys may disagree.
If I say: I saw Blair stealing money from a child's wallet without giving any substanciated truth, by law that is perjury. Political opinions are not the making of the fact, but an interpretation of it.

machno

Lies means lies

07.05.2003 10:10

Mike, the point was, the court found that there is no specific law - only an FFC policy - against a holder of a public concession using the airwaves to spread lies. Lies, not political opinions.

de