Blatant lies in political ads

[Drain_Bead]

Rachel Maddow’s Blog brings up an interesting point, in light of recent Romney statements (including an attack ad) that, using the most charitable interpretation, misrepresent the truth entirely. What can be done about these ads? Is this defamation? I have to think that actual malice is pretty easily shown here. One of these ads (the early voting one) is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. This can also be compared to what Harry Reid has been doing regarding Romney’s taxes. I have to think he’s showing some reckless disregard as to the truth…although it’s entirely possible that the truth is his defense, seeing as the Romney camp is completely disinterested in proving him wrong.

I was really disheartened to see the story about the welfare ad aired on CBS news this morning as if each candidate had a legitimate viewpoint, rather than actually exposing the lies as they are. I find today’s political climate wholly depressing if candidates can get away with this kind of behavior. If anyone can just go on TV, make stuff up, and have mainstream media present it as fact, is our system beyond repair?

[Steve_MB]

The two cases are not equivalent. Reid may or may not be telling the truth about his source, and his source may or may not have told the truth to him (or may have been honestly mistaken*). The Romney ad, on the other hand, is simply a flat-out falsehood, either a deliberate lie or a statement made with reckless disregard for truth.

*The premise that Romney’s old cronies at Bain Capital would have heard about Romney’s tax situation has the ring of truth – guys in the boardroom probably brag about finding loopholes the way guys in the locker room brag about having a threesome with the head cheerleader and the homecoming queen. The question is whether the story heard by Reid’s informant was mere “Dear Financial Times: I Never Thought This Would Happen To Me…” bluster.

[bengangmo]

@Drain_Bead

Rachel Maddow’s Blog brings up an interesting point, in light of recent Romney statements (including an attack ad) that, using the most charitable interpretation, misrepresent the truth entirely. What can be done about these ads? Is this defamation? I have to think that actual malice is pretty easily shown here. One of these ads (the early voting one) is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. This can also be compared to what Harry Reid has been doing regarding Romney’s taxes. I have to think he’s showing some reckless disregard as to the truth…although it’s entirely possible that the truth is his defense, seeing as the Romney camp is completely disinterested in proving him wrong.

I was really disheartened to see the story about the welfare ad aired on CBS news this morning as if each candidate had a legitimate viewpoint, rather than actually exposing the lies as they are. I find today’s political climate wholly depressing if candidates can get away with this kind of behavior. If anyone can just go on TV, make stuff up, and have mainstream media present it as fact, is our system beyond repair?

To put it simply - Your System is Broken

I live in Singapore - here, the media environment is rather oppressive to say the least.

BUT - when I look at what passes for commentary in the states I actually think the Singapore govt has a pretty damn good philosophy.

Something needs to be done about the utter stupidity and disregard for the truth that happens in American politics.

[John_Mace]

@Drain_Bead

Rachel Maddow’s Blog brings up an interesting point, in light of recent Romney statements (including an attack ad) that, using the most charitable interpretation, misrepresent the truth entirely. What can be done about these ads? Is this defamation? I have to think that actual malice is pretty easily shown here.

Highly unlikely.

A major limiting factor to this concrete First Amendment exception are statements made against public figures. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Court strongly suggested that even “deliberate lies” could not be punished if made against the government. Since that decision, many cases that have dealt with this rule have struggled to define the line of who actually is a ‘public figure’. The Supreme Court has also extended this doctrine to non-political figures who are simply famous or well-known in the media.

<snip>

False statements that are on matters of public concern and that defame public figures are unprotected if either the speaker has knowledge that his statements are false, there is a negligence in the statement, or there is “actual malice” to inflict harm.[3] The “actual malice” test comes from the Supreme Court’s decision New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). That case concerned an allegation of libel by L.B. Sullivan, a supervisor of the Montgomery, Alabama police department. Sullivan argued that a full-page advertisement in the New York Times incorrectly asserted that his police department let civil rights violations against blacks occur.[9] The Court held that even if the advertisement was incorrect, the fact that there was no intent to harm Sullivan by the newspaper (“actual malice”) meant that the lawsuit could not proceed.[9] This specific standard of mens rea is specifically to be used in cases where such speech comments on a matter of public concern.[12]

[Jackmannii]

@Drain_Bead

If anyone can just go on TV, make stuff up, and have mainstream media present it as fact, is our system beyond repair?

One good thing is that the mainstream media don’t just sit there and repeat bullshit as facts. Example.

Not sure how many Pinocchios Romney deserves for his latest ad, but four sounds about right there as well.

[bengangmo]

@John_Mace

Highly unlikely.

This is a case that saw New Zealand dealing with such matters - yeah, the law and history is a bit different. But in this case the rights of comment against public figures were curtailed a little. I seem to remember another case that was taken against The Listener, but I can’t be arsed searching for it…

[BrainGlutton]

@bengangmo

To put it simply - Your System is Broken

I live in Singapore - here, the media environment is rather oppressive to say the least.

BUT - when I look at what passes for commentary in the states I actually think the Singapore govt has a pretty damn good philosophy.

Something needs to be done about the utter stupidity and disregard for the truth that happens in American politics.

So? Can commentary, etc., in Singapore media be trusted as truthful?

[bengangmo]

@BrainGlutton

So? Can commentary, etc., in Singapore media be trusted as truthful?

Depends upon who you talk to, and your definition of truthful.

What you can be sure of, no outright lies are printed.

On the other hand, they are pretty bad at investigating and are often just reprinting official statements without verification (not that they are able to verify as they is no access to official information other than what the govt wants to give them)

[Drain_Bead]

John Mace, you don’t think actual malice can be shown there? I think making a false statement in order to try to take someone else’s job from them is the definition of actual malice.

[John_Mace]

@Drain_Bead

John Mace, you don’t think actual malice can be shown there? I think making a false statement in order to try to take someone else’s job from them is the definition of actual malice.

No, but if you can find a precedent in case law, that would be persuasive. Surely you don’t believe that “lying” in political ads was invented this year, do you? There should be hundreds of cases successfully made if you are correct.

[Drain_Bead]

I honestly can’t think of a lie that’s been told in past elections as demonstrably false as the early voting in Ohio issue. Swiftboating comes close, but I don’t think that hits the same level of falsehood (it’s certainly not as easily proven), nor do I think it reaches the same level of malice, as it wasn’t the candidate himself speaking the lies. I also think that the rumored South Carolina push-polling about McCain’s “illegitimate black child” in 2000 could potentially have reached that level, but I’m not sure if it has even been proven that actually occurred. Can you think of a case where a candidate has made a point of stating the exact opposite of the truth over and over again, as it is in the case of the attempted Ohio early voting expansion? I cannot.

There’s also the issue as to whether the negative publicity involved in bringing such a suit would be worth it for the candidate in question. For example, McCain wouldn’t have done anything about the abhorrent alleged push-poll back in 2000, as it was intra-party and he likely did not want to alienate those who now controlled the party.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I’m curious about the ads where incumbents are using language to give the impression that their opponents are incumbents; do they fall afoul of any laws? Should they?

GOP freshmen run away from incumbency

Having Utterly Failed In Congress, GOP Freshmen Are Now Trying To Deny They’re Incumbents

[Jackmannii]

So now we are obliged to define “actual malice” in campaign ads, as opposed to classical sleaze?

It’s too complicated for me. I’m gonna hole up someplace without media access for the next few months.

[Lobohan]

“Barak Obama destroyed the moon.” —Mitt Romney

[Gangster_Octopus]

Per Politifact

Barack Obama - 46% True or Mostly True; 17% False or Pants on Fire

Mitt Romney 30% True or Mostly True; 27% False or Pants on Fire

Democratic National Committee - 38% True or Mostly True; 7% False or Pants on Fire (No Pants on Fire)

Republican National Committee - 25% True or Mostly True; 25% False or Pants on Fire

[TransMonk]

The system has been broken for some time and blatantly-false negative ads are nothing new.

-This post brought to you by The Swiftboat Veterans of American and Willie Horton.

[TriPolar]

@Jackmannii

So now we are obliged to define “actual malice” in campaign ads, as opposed to classical sleaze?

It’s too complicated for me. I’m gonna hole up someplace without media access for the next few months.

Here is an explanation of malice as it applies to public figures. For Romney or Obama to sue the other he would have to prove the other knew the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth. That one’s very difficult to prove to start with. But looking further at the court ruling in *New York Times v Sullivan * you will see that there is a distaste in the court for anything that would stifle strong advocacy in political speech.

But the Court was careful to note that it “retains and exercises authority to nullify action which encroaches on freedom of utterance under the guise of punishing libel”; for “public men, are, as it were, public property,” and “discussion cannot be denied and the right, as well as the duty, of criticism must not be stifled.”

The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 . “*t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 , and this opportunity is to be afforded for “vigorous advocacy” no less than “abstract discussion.” N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429 . [376 U.S. 254, 270] The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.

“Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”

[Truman_Burbank]

@Drain_Bead

I honestly can’t think of a lie that’s been told in past elections as demonstrably false as the early voting in Ohio issue. Swiftboating comes close, but I don’t think that hits the same level of falsehood (it’s certainly not as easily proven), nor do I think it reaches the same level of malice, as it wasn’t the candidate himself speaking the lies. I also think that the rumored South Carolina push-polling about McCain’s “illegitimate black child” in 2000 could potentially have reached that level, but I’m not sure if it has even been proven that actually occurred. Can you think of a case where a candidate has made a point of stating the exact opposite of the truth over and over again, as it is in the case of the attempted Ohio early voting expansion? I cannot.

There’s also the issue as to whether the negative publicity involved in bringing such a suit would be worth it for the candidate in question. For example, McCain wouldn’t have done anything about the abhorrent alleged push-poll back in 2000, as it was intra-party and he likely did not want to alienate those who now controlled the party.

Did ya hear the one about Helen Gahagan Douglas being a 'Pink Lady" soft on communism?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Jackmannii

One good thing is that the mainstream media don’t just sit there and repeat bullshit as facts. Example.

Not sure how many Pinocchios Romney deserves for his latest ad, but four sounds about right there as well.

Of course, that just isn’t always true (especially if you want to count FOX as part of the Lamestream media). It’s a depressing fact that far too much of political “reporting” has devolved from actual investigative reporting into he-said she-said. I’m left to wonder – who, beyond those typically slandered as “left-wing”, will address the falsehoods in this ad? Probably no-one.

But you know what pisses me off the most? Corporations trying to sell a product? They aren’t allowed to lie. They will get hit for it hard. There’s something wrong with our system when Nutella dropping in a line like “This is a healthy start to the day” in their ads will cost them millions in a lawsuit, but Romney flat-out lying about the president’s record on Welfare is A-OK.

[adaher]

I’m not sure what the point of complaining about this is, given that neither side is even trying to be truthful. Just do your best to sift through it all, with the fact checking sites as a good guide, and you’ll be fine. If you demand truth out of your candidates, then the only choice is Gary Johnson.