The old woman whose house was crushed by a tree, then eaten by termites, and screwed over by both her insurance company and the exterminators
The diabetic triplets allergic to insulin
The 94-year-old woman who was hit by a bus, then sued by the bus company
The muderer who admitted to murder on camera, but who still walks free (now they are complaining about how the police STILL haven’t done anything, over a week after their amazing expose)
The family struggling to make ends meet, who are in massive debt because their neighbour keeps making phone sex calls that are billed to their account
Etc
Etc
Etc :rolleyes:
I have my suspicions that they’re exaggerating things a little, if not just pulling the stories out of their asses altogether. Sierra’s response seems to suggest that it wouldn’t much matter if they did just make things up, since they’re not “news” programs. So my questions are:
What makes a news program?
Are current affairs programs required to contain any fact at all?
Are there any laws that say news programs need to report facts?
There are no laws per se about what a program must have, except that it can’t be obscene. There are civil laws about defamation, but the injured party must sue in court and prove their case, which can be difficult to do.
That said, tabloid journalism stories are still generally based on at least a kernel of truth. For example, a National Enquirer story about Kobe Bryant’s accuser quoted a friend as saying that the accuser wanted to have sex with celebrities. Deep in the story, it said that the accuser said this at a slumber party when she was 15, a few years before the alleged attack. So, there’s the nugget of truth. She may have said this, but the context was buried. (I don’t read the National Enquirer for fun; it was for a class I was taking.)
Other techniques used by tabloid outlets are checkbook journalism, in which a source is paid for their story; and “gotcha” journalism, in which the subject is provoked into a reaction.
Since this is GQ and not GD, I won’t touch the issue of “what makes a news program”, since I’m not sure there are factual answers to that.
That’s not very reassuring. I was hoping there’d be more controls in place. Then again relying on the people’s bullshit-detection abilities vs. relying on the government’s corruption-resisting abilities is a pretty crap choice to begin with.
This means that the FCC, which is the arm of the government that oversees broadcasting, can’t put controls on content. (The FCC isn’t Congress, but it derives its powers from Congress.) This is a Good Thing, because we don’t want some government nebby-nose telling us what is news and what isn’t.
That said, though, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. Sierra Indigo lives in Australia (IIRC, and please correct me if I’m wrong). They have different rules than we do in the U.S. In the U.S., prior restraint is a bad thing, but we have civil controls in place so injured parties can find relief. I don’t know how it works in Australia.
I sure hope so, because I’d be interested in seeing this decision.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint by the government. That means the government can’t tell you in advance not to publish something.
The First Amendment prohibits regulation based on content, which means that the government cannot ban the publication of a false statement.
If, however, someone is injured by the publication of a false statement, there are remedies in tort law, the most prominent being defamation law (libel or slander).
The common law of torts also includes several privacy torts: false light, misappropriation, intrusion, and disclosure of embarrassing facts.
Most states have false advertising laws in their consumer protection statutes.
There might also be civil law remedies for detrimental reliance on an intentionally false statement made in a news programme, but I’m not sure about that.
There might be some civil action or criminal laws that apply to intentionally false information that causes a public panic or some other public hazard.
You have to understand: The laws governing major media also applies to the tabloids next to the checkout lines in the grocery stores. In short, the existence of Bat Boy has exactly the same level of truth as American soldiers captured Saddam first.
I believe he means that although the law does not impose differing standards on serious news and tabloid news services, but that doesn’t mean that the two reflect the “same level of truth.” Just because it’s not legally enforced doesn’t mean there can’t be a standard that some choose to meet and others don’t.
Actually, the Florida case doesn’t end the discussion. It’s a state law case that held that an employee couldn’t win a claim under Florida’s Whistleblower Protection Act because the Florida court system read the FCC regulations narrowly. But one must consider the context. An employee threatened to complain to the FCC about FOX’s lying. FOX fired the employee. The court found that “Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.”
And even the court acknowledged that the FCC has implemented its policy against news distortion and slanting “through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’ licenses.” In other words, a broadcaster can indeed be sanctioned for slanting news.
And even the court acknowledged that the FCC has implemented its policy against news distortion and slanting “through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’ licenses.” In other words, a broadcaster can indeed be sanctioned for slanting news.
And FOX, trembling in terror from the FCC’s adjudicatory process has told the truth, and nothing but the truth, ever since.
Not sure what one thing has to do with the other. You claimed that “FOX news won a court verdict which allows them to lie in their news coverage.” That’s not what the court held. The court held that employee could not sue if fired for threatening to report them to the FCC. Given that ruling, I’m guessing FOX’s Florida employees, at least, are less likely to threaten to report (or actually report) news distortions.
Does it mean that the regulatory agency charged with licensing and supervision of broadcasters can’t take action against a broadcaster for news distortion? Does it mean that FOX has a constitutional right to broadcast whatever content it wants? The answer to both questions is no.
Meaning, that ToC disputes the argument that because the same legal standards apply to both serious news and tabloid news, one concludes that the “same level of truth” is to be found in both kinds of publications.
Meaning, serious news outlets and tabloid news outlets.
Meaning, the same legal standards apply to both. The law doesn’t view National Public Radio as having a differing obligation with regards to the truth as compared to the National Enquirer.
Just because the same legal standards apply to both types of news outlets doesn’t mean that the reader must approach information acquired from N.P.R. as inherently reliable or unreliable as information acquired from the Enquirer. The two organisations themselves impose differing standards on themselves and the news consumer can learn to apply differing levels of skepticism to reports from them.
Just because 2 publishing entities are governed by the same set of rules, does not mean that the “level of truth” in them is the same.
I can publish a scholarly book on the history of Rome, and I can publish a trashy romance set in Rome of the same period. I can even reference the same historical people and places. That does not mean that the “level of truth” in the 2 is identical.
Again, people fail to see the reason for my puzzlement.
I understand the words being posted.
I don’t know whyTastes of Chocolate included my post in his/her apparently unrelated post.
acsenray: Did you not read my 2nd post??? I clearly stated that the words made sense. The issue is why are those particular words considered relevant to my post.
You could have saved a lot of effort if you read that post before replying.
