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)
**ftg **
You made a sweeping statement that equated to “Everything in print has an equal amount of truth to it”
I am disputing your assertion.
In other words -
CITE
Heck, yeah, I do. Which is why I mentioned “obscenity” in my original response.
Robin
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 …)
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:
- The average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; and
- The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973)
The statute discussed in *Pacifica *said:
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:
But the Court read this section to prohibit the FCC from reviewing and editing material before it was broadcast:
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
- The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues;
- Coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views;
- This must be done at the broadcaster’s own expense if sponsorship is unavailable; and
- 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. 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. 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 (“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;
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?
The FCC Tries To Silence Howard Stern: Can the Radio Shock Jock Sue?
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
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.
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.
Nobody mentioned it in this D.C. Circuit case. 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.
:smack: Oops.
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.
Got the SD on Australia. I didn’t know any of this an hour ago, but the following seems pretty clear:
TheAustralian Broadcasting Authority 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 Under the Act, the ABA adopted broadcasting standards with extensive content requirements. Including this standard for :
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 (commercial television, see Rule 4.3); 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 and radio broadcasts:
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 (villification)
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 (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, 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.
*ABC and SBS 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
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.
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:
Commercial Radio Code of Practice (pdf).
- Are there any laws that say news programs need to report facts?
Similar requirements apply to news programs:
*Id. *
Hope this helps.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 (pdf); Policy Statement 2001 (pdf); and see, Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity - Frequently Asked Questions:
Probably not. Although, it could be held to be overbroad. See, Hynes v. Mayor Of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (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
See generally, http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/pdf/Media_Law_Chap13.pdf
page not found
But see, Marla Brooke Tusk, No Citation Rules as Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech, 103 Columbia L. Rev. 1202 (2003) (arguing that rules prohibitting lawyers from citing unpublished cases is a prior restraint).
Yes. That’s true. All of the FCC’s pronouncements on the topic stress the importance of context.
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.
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 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.
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.