# Are current affairs programs under any legal obligation to report fact? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 13, 2005, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042 "2005-10-13T10:55:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![aeropl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f05b48/32.png) [@aeropl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aeropl)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/21 "2005-10-14T22:28:01Z")
They can be held civilly liable for libel if someone was wronged and could prove in court that the show intended malice and actually knew that the reported facts were wrong. If you want to read the case: New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1965) ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/22 "2005-10-14T22:38:02Z")
\*\*ftg \*\* You made a sweeping statement that equated to “Everything in print has an equal amount of truth to it” > [@](#): > > In short, the existence of Bat Boy has exactly the same level of truth as American soldiers captured Saddam first. I am disputing your assertion. In other words - CITE ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/23 "2005-10-15T00:24:34Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Sure they can. Remember the “Filthy Words” case? [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726) Heck, yeah, I do. Which is why I mentioned “obscenity” in my original response. Robin ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/24 "2005-10-15T01:51:25Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > \*\*ftg \*\* > You made a sweeping statement that equated to “Everything in print has an equal amount of truth to it” Wrong-o-rino. I was saying that _all_ media have the same rules applied to them. If fact, I believe my exact words were: “The laws governing major media also applies to the tabloids next to the checkout lines in the grocery stores.” (How anyone can go from my statement to your interpretation is beyond me.) People generally understand that tabloids “fudge” things and more. (True, there are the “it has to be true or the government wouldn’t let them print it” tabloid buying crowd, but hopefully that’s a smallish group.) What a amazing number of people fail to understand is that The Big City Times also fudges things to remarkable extents. Ergo, most Americans might think one story is obviously false because it’s in a tabloid while the other “has to be true, I saw it in The Big City Times.” In fact, both stories are false. Obviously, The National Enquirer will sometimes print true stories, and sometimes The Big City Times will print true stories. People just need to be aware just as you shouldn’t automatically trust a tabloid, neither should you automatically trust The Big City Times. The rules are the same for both! (And if anyone wants cites to the Saddam story, do a search on my user name (!) and “Saddam.” I’m quite frankly fed up with providing the same cites over and over and over …) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/25 "2005-10-15T02:53:31Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > Heck, yeah, I do. Which is why I mentioned “obscenity” in my original response. > > Robin The problem with talking about obscenity, is that the statute in _Pacifica_ (the “Filthy Words” case specifically rejected an attempt to limit the statute’s application to constitutionally obscene matters. If that were the case, the FCC would have to find: 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; and 3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. [Miller v. California](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=15#24) 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973) The statute discussed in \*Pacifica \*said: > [@](#): > > Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. [18 U.S.C. § 1464](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001464----000-.html) The Court found that as a matter of statutory interpretation, the statute barred more than obscenity, and that doing so did not offend the First Amendment. More to the point is [47 U.S.C. § 326](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000326----000-.html): > [@](#): > > Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. But the Court read this section to prohibit the FCC from reviewing and editing material before it was broadcast: > [@](#): > > The prohibition against censorship unequivocally denies the Commission any power to edit proposed broadcasts in advance and to excise material considered inappropriate for the airwaves. The prohibition, however, has never been construed to deny the Commission the power to review the content of completed broadcasts in the performance of its regulatory duties. That is how the FCC has dealt with news distortion, too. So the anti-censorship statute does not help. In addition to prohibitions on obscene, indecent, and profane language; and news distortion and slanting, the FCC was permited to impose requirements that 1. The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues; 2. Coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views; 3. This must be done at the broadcaster’s own expense if sponsorship is unavailable; and 4. The duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee’s own initiative if available from no other source. The “Fairness Doctrine,” was upheld against a First Amendment challenge in [Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=395&invol=367#391). 395 U.S. 367, 391 (1969) (“It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here.”) The FCC abrogated the Fairness Doctrine in [1987](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm). But the _Red Lion_ case and \*Pacifica \*both stand for the proposition that the FCC can regulate radio speech to a much larger extent than that to which other types of speech may be regulated. _But see_, [FCC pamphlet: Complaints About Broadcast Journalism](http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html) (“The FCC can not interfere with a broadcaster’s selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary,” but “Complaints regarding news distortion, rigging or slanting can be filed with the Federal Communications Commission.”) Additional resources; > **[FCC fairness doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine)** > > The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation. However later the FCC removed the rule that implem The f... Chad Raphael, The FCC’s broadcast news distortion rules: Regulation by drooping eyelid. 6 Communication Law & Policy 485 (2001) [Does the First Amendment Protect Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake?](http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/findlaw.analysis.dorf.jackson.indecency/) [The FCC Tries To Silence Howard Stern: Can the Radio Shock Jock Sue?](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040413.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sierra\_Indigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Sierra\_Indigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sierra_Indigo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/26 "2005-10-15T08:48:25Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > It all comes down to the First Amendment. > > (bolding mine) > > 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. > > Robin I don’t have much to say on the legal side of things, but I’m just confirming and clearing something up - I am in Australia, and **csharpmajor** is too, so what she’s (I hope she, please don’t hit me 😃 ) referring to is Australian programming and reporting. Interesting info about the way it works in the US that you all have posted, though. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/27 "2005-10-15T13:35:04Z")
> [@Sierra Indigo](#): > > I don’t have much to say on the legal side of things, but I’m just confirming and clearing something up - I am in Australia, and **csharpmajor** is too, so what she’s (I hope she, please don’t hit me 😃 ) referring to is Australian programming and reporting. > > Interesting info about the way it works in the US that you all have posted, though. Thanks. In the US, WA is the abbreviation for Washington State, so I thought she was from there. It never occurred to me that WA could also stand for “Western Australia”. I apologize for my US-centric assumptions. **Gfactor** , I am well aware of all of this. In fact, when I took Communications Law, my semester project was about obscenity and I had to do a presentation on _Red Lion_, so I am well aware that restrictions exist, and what the relevant laws and regulations are. However, in the US anyway, most action takes place **after** the program airs, not before, so there is really no major role for the FCC in regulating content before the fact. In any event, at least in terms of news programs, any attempt for the FCC to issue guidelines as to what constitutes “news” would likely be met with challenges coming from virtually all sides, as it would most likely constitute “prior restraint”. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/28 "2005-10-15T14:45:44Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > **Gfactor** , I am well aware of all of this. In fact, when I took Communications Law, my semester project was about obscenity and I had to do a presentation on _Red Lion_, so I am well aware that restrictions exist, and what the relevant laws and regulations are. You misdescribe them when you limit them to obscenity. Old and new, the regulations apply to obscenity, profanity, and indecency. That covers a lot more ground. > [@](#): > > However, in the US anyway, most action takes place **after** the program airs, not before, so there is really no major role for the FCC in regulating content before the fact. Of couse.That’s why they don’t say f\*ck on the radio or on television shows. Or is it maybe because an NPR station was fined in 1998 for airing the song Erotic City? [http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass\_Media/Orders/1998/da981566.txt](http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/da981566.txt). > [@](#): > > In any event, at least in terms of news programs, any attempt for the FCC to issue guidelines as to what constitutes “news” would likely be met with challenges coming from virtually all sides, as it would most likely constitute “prior restraint”. Nobody mentioned it in this D.C. Circuit case. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=951385a](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=951385a) . Can you cite me some examples where the FCC’s acknowledged policy on news distortion was claimed to be a prior restraint? I’ve already quoted the Supreme Court’s take on prior restraint in this context: As long as the FCC isn’t editing material \*before \* broadcast, it is free to impose guidelines. > [@Sierra Indigo](#): > > I am in Australia, and csharpmajor is too :smack: Oops. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/29 "2005-10-15T16:03:37Z")
**Gfactor** , you and I are agreeing on the fundamental points. You’re just going into much more detail than I am. One of the reasons broadcasters make it a habit not to swear is fear of punishment. No one wants to pay a huge sum of money to the FCC for something that is preventable. However, I could utter a sentence involving all seven of Carlin’s dirty words on the air, and if no one complains to the FCC, I’m off scot-free. Moreover, you forgot to mention the “Safe Harbor” hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., when the FCC is more permissive about what is allowed on the air. As to my point on prior restraint, no one really wants to see the FCC standing over their shoulder telling them what is and isn’t “news”, nor does anyone really want the FCC telling them how to cover stories. That isn’t their job. News distortion is a separate issue, but again, the FCC is involved after the fact, not before it. Fox is learning this by disguising their crap “news” as opinions. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/30 "2005-10-15T16:05:44Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > **Gfactor** , you and I are agreeing on the fundamental points. You’re just going into much more detail than I am. > > One of the reasons broadcasters make it a habit not to swear is fear of punishment. No one wants to pay a huge sum of money to the FCC for something that is preventable. However, I could utter a sentence involving all seven of Carlin’s dirty words on the air, and if no one complains to the FCC, I’m off scot-free. Moreover, you forgot to mention the “Safe Harbor” hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., when the FCC is more permissive about what is allowed on the air. > > As to my point on prior restraint, no one really wants to see the FCC standing over their shoulder telling them what is and isn’t “news”, nor does anyone really want the FCC telling them how to cover stories. That isn’t their job. News distortion is a separate issue, but again, the FCC is involved after the fact, not before it. Fox is learning this by disguising their crap “news” as opinions. > > Robin Good points. All of them. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/31 "2005-10-17T03:34:52Z")
> [@Sierra Indigo](#): > > I don’t have much to say on the legal side of things, but I’m just confirming and clearing something up - I am in Australia, and **csharpmajor** is too, so what she’s (I hope she, please don’t hit me 😃 ) referring to is Australian programming and reporting. > > Interesting info about the way it works in the US that you all have posted, though. Got the SD on Australia. I didn’t know any of this an hour ago, but the following seems pretty clear: The[Australian Broadcasting Authority](http://www.aba.gov.au) regulated broadcasting (except for ABC and SBS)\* under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 until July 2005, when it merged with the Australian Communications Authority to form the Australian Communications and Media Authority . One of the Act’s expressed purposes is:“to encourage providers of commercial and community broadcasting services to be responsive to the need for a fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest and for an appropriate coverage of matters of local significance.” [link](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/2AEF6979D3CEFED5CA256F71004C5489) Under the Act, the ABA adopted broadcasting standards with extensive content requirements. Including this standard for : > [@](#): > > 2.6 > > News and Current Affairs Programming > This code is intended to promote accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs programs. > > News and current affairs programs (including news flashes) programs should: > > 1. provide access to views under-represented by the mainstream media; > 2. present factual material accurately and ensure that reasonable efforts are made to correct substantial errors of fact at the earliest possible opportunity; > 3. clearly distinguish factual material from commentary and analysis; > 4. not present news in such a way as to create public panic or unnecessary distress to listeners; > 5. not misrepresent a viewpoint by giving misleading emphasis, editing out of context or withholding relevant available facts. [http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/radio/community\_radio.shtml](http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/radio/community_radio.shtml) (community radio); [http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/television/documents/CodeofPractice-July2004.pdf](http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/television/documents/CodeofPractice-July2004.pdf) (commercial television, see Rule 4.3); [http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/aba/contentreg/codes/radio/documents/cra-codeofpractice.pdf](http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/aba/contentreg/codes/radio/documents/cra-codeofpractice.pdf) (commercial radio-see Rule 2). The ABA website lists investigative findings for all sorts of content-related infractions in [television](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/television.shtml) and [radio](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/radio.shtml) broadcasts: [http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio\_TV/investigations/broadcast\_operations/documents/radio/2001/946.pdf](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/documents/radio/2001/946.pdf) (villification) [http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio\_TV/investigations/broadcast\_operations/documents/radio/2001/908.pdf](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/documents/radio/2001/908.pdf) (villification) [http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio\_TV/investigations/broadcast\_operations/documents/1362.pdf](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/documents/1362.pdf) (impartial news reporting) [http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio\_TV/investigations/broadcast\_operations/documents/television/2005/1397.pdf](http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/radio_TV/investigations/broadcast_operations/documents/television/2005/1397.pdf) (factual inaccuracy) more at the links shown above. So it looks like they are still enforcing the standards. If you believe a broadcaster has violated the content regulations, you can [complain here](http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:794543258:pc=PC_90101), but only if you have first complained to the broadcaster and received an unsatisfactory response. [http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:794543258:pc=PC\_90139](http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:794543258:pc=PC_90139). \*[ABC](http://www.abc.net.au/corp/codeprac.htm) and [SBS](http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1061#2.4) have similar codes of practice with similar requirements. Here is information about how you can complain about them. [http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:794543258:pc=PC\_90138](http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:794543258:pc=PC_90138) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/32 "2005-10-17T03:58:23Z")
> [@csharpmajor](#): > > 1. What makes a news program? I wasn’t able to find a definition of “news program,” but it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference because the codes of practice all seem to cover news and current affairs programs. > [@](#): > > 1. Are current affairs programs required to contain _any_ fact at all? I’m not sure that it’s possible to avoid reporting facts, even if you are giving opinions about current events. Only purely hypothetical opinions can avoid making factual assumptions. For instance, there is no rule specifically precluding a report on whether capital punishment is a good idea (from a purely philosophical perspective). As long as the broadcaster does report facts, the following sorts of requirements apply to them: > [@](#): > > 2.2 In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs, a licensee must ensure that: > (a) factual material is presented accurately and that reasonable efforts are made to correct substantial errors of fact at the earliest possible opportunity; > (b) the reporting of factual material is clearly distinguishable from commentary and analysis; > © reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints when dealing with controversial issues of public importance, either within the same program or similar programs, while the issue has immediate relevance to the community; > (d) viewpoints expressed to the licensee for broadcast are not misrepresented and material is not presented in a misleading manner by giving wrong or improper emphasis or by editing out of context; > (e) respect is given to each person’s legitimate right to protection from unjustified use of material which is obtained without an individual’s consent or other unwarranted and intrusive invasions of privacy. [Commercial Radio Code of Practice](http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/aba/contentreg/codes/radio/documents/cra-codeofpractice.pdf) (pdf). 1. Are there any laws that say _news_ programs need to report facts? Similar requirements apply to news programs: > [@](#): > > 2.1 News programs (including news flashes) broadcast by a licensee must: > (a) present news accurately; > (b) not present news in such a way as to create public panic, or unnecessary distress to listeners; > © distinguish news from comment; and > (d) not use material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs, or which invades an individual’s privacy, unless there is a public interest in broadcasting such information. \*Id. \* Hope this helps. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/33 "2005-10-17T05:34:59Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > That’s why they don’t say f\*ck on the radio or on television shows. Contrary to popular belief, the FCC does not keep a list of words banned from broadcasting, as that would be prior restraint. The FCC has stated that it will investigate complaints about “indecent” programming broadcast between 6 am and 10 pm. Even during those hours of 6 am to 10 pm, context is important. The FCC did not have a problem with “fuck” being used in the movies _Schindler’s List_ and _Saving Private Ryan_, or “bullshit” being used in the plays _Give 'em Hell, Harry_ and _On Golden Pond_ when they were broadcast on prime-time network television. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/34 "2005-10-17T12:27:21Z")
There is another principle in play. The FCC manages a limited resource, the radio spectrum. One category of user, television broadcasters, gets its slice of that very limited pie by, in part, promising to serve its local community. I understand they typically do this with news programs of various sorts, which of course have to search for plausible material in a local context. Of course, having freedom of speech, and having control of one of the few frequency bands for broadcast television (of which there are only 11 for VHF), are two very different things - though they are related. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/35 "2005-10-17T13:41:53Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > **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. Of course I read your second post. That’s why I replied. And that’s why I tried to show you exactly how **Tastes** ’ argument was contradicting something you said, namely: > [@](#): > > In short, the existence of Bat Boy has exactly the same level of truth as American soldiers captured Saddam first. Which I took to mean, something like: “A report in the _National Enquirer_ saying that there is a Bat Boy should be viewed as having the same level of reliability as a report in the _New York Times_ saying that American soldiers captured Saddam first.” Which, in my view, is not true. Yes, we should be skeptical of what the _New York Times_ says, especially because, yeah, sometimes they’re wrong. But it calls for a different _degree_ of skepticism. > [@](#): > > Obviously, The National Enquirer will sometimes print true stories, and sometimes The Big City Times will print true stories. People just need to be aware just as you shouldn’t automatically trust a tabloid, neither should you automatically trust The Big City Times. The rules are the same for both! And what I’m saying is that the rules are not the same for both. The _legal standards_ are the same, but there are rules other than just legal standards at play. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/36 "2005-10-17T13:51:53Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Which I took to mean, something like: > > “A report in the _National Enquirer_ saying that there is a Bat Boy should be viewed as having the same level of reliability as a report in the _New York Times_ saying that American soldiers captured Saddam first.” Bat Boy is the creation of the tongue-in-cheek _Weekly World News_, not the _National Enquirer_, which is way at the other end of the tabloid spectrum, differing little from _People_. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/37 "2005-10-18T02:30:10Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Contrary to popular belief, the FCC does not keep a list of words banned from broadcasting I’m not sure how popular this belief really is, but I sure don’t hold it. OTOH, the FCC has singled out the F-word. [FCC 04-43](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-43A1.pdf) (pdf); [Policy Statement 2001](http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.pdf) (pdf); _and see_, [Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity - Frequently Asked Questions](http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html): > [@](#): > > What makes material “profane?” “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. > [@](#): > > as that would be prior restraint. Probably not. Although, it could be held to be overbroad. _See_, [Hynes v. Mayor Of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=425&page=620#620) (Government may regulate only with narrow specificity in First Amendment context). A rule or statutory scheme will not be found to be a prior restraint where "strict standards of procedural protections to ensure that the censoring agency bears the burden of proof on obscenity, only a judicial order can restrain exhibition, and a prompt final judicial decision is assured. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html) _See generally_, [http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/pdf/Media\_Law\_Chap13.pdf](http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/pdf/Media_Law_Chap13.pdf) [page not found](http://www.massbar.org/publications/journalists_handbook/?sw=3161) _But see_, [Marla Brooke Tusk, No Citation Rules as Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech, 103 Columbia L. Rev. 1202 (2003)](http://www.nonpublication.com/tusk.pdf) (arguing that rules prohibitting lawyers from citing unpublished cases is a prior restraint). > [@](#): > > Even during those hours of 6 am to 10 pm, context is important. The FCC did not have a problem with “fuck” being used in the movies _Schindler’s List_ and _Saving Private Ryan_, or “bullshit” being used in the plays _Give 'em Hell, Harry_ and _On Golden Pond_ when they were broadcast on prime-time network television. Yes. That’s true. All of the FCC’s pronouncements on the topic stress the importance of context. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/38 "2005-10-18T02:45:41Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Which I took to mean, something like: > > “A report in the _National Enquirer_ saying that there is a Bat Boy should be viewed as having the same level of reliability as a report in the _New York Times_ saying that American soldiers captured Saddam first.” Please _do not_ “restate” what I said into something completely different. I said _no such thing._ I remain puzzled by why **Tastes of Chocolate** linked my post to his/her apparently unrelated statement. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/39 "2005-10-18T12:17:04Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Please _do not_ “restate” what I said into something completely different. I said _no such thing._ Why are you being so obstreperous? I was merely telling you what I understood by what you said. Such a statement is not meant to put words into your mouth but to merely tell you what I understood, which is “which I took to mean” means. Isn’t hte purpose here to communicate effectively in order to fight ignorance? If I tell you what I understood you to say, that gives you an opportunity to restate what you said in an effort to help me better understand. > [@](#): > > I remain puzzled by why **Tastes of Chocolate** linked my post to his/her apparently unrelated statement. I don’t get it. Are you joking? Both **Tastes** and I have now told you several times that **Tastes** was responding directly to an assertion that it seemed to him (and to me) you had made and we have both tried to explain to you why we both thought that it was a reasonable response to what you said. But now you keep repeating your puzzlement in the same words. I give up. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042/40 "2005-10-18T15:41:06Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > 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. **ftg** - This is a direct copy of your first post. Please explain how you were mis-quoted at any point. Then, like **acsenray** , I give up. You are either being deliberately obtuse, or we are all speaking a different language. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-current-affairs-programs-under-any-legal-obligation-to-report-fact/326042.md?page=3)