# Fox News suit over "fair and balanced" is without merit **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169 "2003-08-23T15:55:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/21 "2003-08-24T13:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*Would [this](http://www.thismodernworld.com/) count ? \*\* Unless I’m missing something, the only use of “fair and balanced” on that site is along the lines of discussion of the Fox-Franken case. It isn’t being used in the trademark sense, i.e., as part of the selling of a product or service. So no, it doesn’t count – otherwise Fox would have to sue every media outlet covering this case, including the SDMB. Upon further review, I AM missing something – “Fair and Balanced” is what appears in the title bar of the web page. Could Fox sue to remove that as a matter of ordinary trademark policing? Sure. Are they likely to? Probably not, since it’s pretty easy to miss; it took me three looks at the website to find it, and I knew that the phrase appeared somewhere on the site. As to your latter point, the answer is “it depends on the character of any subsequent claim for trademark infringement.” If another cable news organization were to start using “fair and balanced” as part of its tagline, Fox would still have a decent case regardless of the outcome of the Franken suit. I think the Fox lawyers expected to lose this one, and just wanted it on the record that they are vigorously contesting any use of that phrase. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/22 "2003-08-24T14:45:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*There were reports earlier this week that this thing was filed at the urging of Bill O’Reilly who has a personal grudge against Franken. The gratuitous insults in the brief sound very much like O’Reilly’s style and he seems to be tremendously thin-skinned and hypocritical when it comes to personal criticism. He’s the classic example of someone who can dish it out but can’t take it. \*\* Not very Fair and Balanced of you, DtC. You claim O’Reilly has a personal grudge against Franken, yet it is Franken who put a picture of O’Reilly on his book, “Liars…”. I’d say the personal grudge is a two-way street. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/23 "2003-08-24T14:56:00Z")
Franken’s book is not just about O’Reilly but about the right-wing media in general. He exposed O’Reilly as a liar and embarrassed him in public and O’Reilly has been acting like a baby ever since. BTW, All O’Reilly _does_ is call people names and launch personal attacks, usually with little or no evidentiary support. He’s a dishonest demagogue and that makes him fair game for satire. He’s just exceedingly thin-skinned about personal criticism. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/24 "2003-08-25T01:54:27Z")
The Fox suit was without _legal_ merit. However, it’s been good for a laugh, during an otherwise horrible news week. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/25 "2003-08-25T02:58:31Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, All O’Reilly does is call people names and launch personal attacks, usually with little or no evidentiary support. He’s a dishonest demagogue and that makes him fair game for satire. He’s just exceedingly thin-skinned about personal criticism. Hm. (/bad Church Lady impression) “Could it be… LIMBAUGH?” (/bad Church Lady impression) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/26 "2003-08-25T03:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > \*\*There is no such thing as bad publicity. > > Fox, and Franken both got to hype up their particular wagon load of goods, and all it cost was the time of their respective lawyers. I am sure both sides are disappointed that there wasn’t a trial. > > Suing and being sued is a great way to boost book sales and audience share. It doesn’t matter if you win or loose. > > Tris \*\* “I conducted my own informal survey of folks I know who’d been both shot _and_ sued. 4 out of 5 of them said they’d rather be shot than sued again.” JFK jr. in _George_ magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/27 "2003-08-25T12:43:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I think the Fox lawyers expected to lose this one, and just wanted it on the record that they are vigorously contesting any use of that phrase. \*\* As I’ve said elsewhere, that seems plausible to me – but the personal attacks on Franken in the suit seemed motivated more by hatred than by any legal priciple I’ve ever heard of. They certainly don’t seem to have helped the suit in any way; ont he contrary, they give the strong impression that the suit ISN’T motivated by firm legal principles, but is rather an attempt to pull the courts into a pissing match between Franken and O’Reilly. Sure, they needed to establish that Franken’s use of their trademark would dilute it – but there are better ways to do that than by calling Franken a shrill, unfunny, deranged, second-rate commentator. Why not point out that he’s heavily partisan, and that Fox depends for their reputation on being (heh heh) “fair and balanced,” and that the idiots who read Fox’s books are likely to confuse Franken’s highly partisan leftist attacks with their own (chortle) objective journalism, and that their reputation would thereby be besmirched? Such an argument, while no less patently ridiculous than the one they used, would at least look like a legal argument and not a vendetta. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169/28 "2003-08-25T13:11:26Z")
Well, Daniel, I can only say what I said in that other thread: reading the complaint makes it clear why they allege the things they do. For example, the stuff about Franken being deranged, second-rate, etc relates to their claim that Franken’s use diminishes the mark. They’re basically saying the mark is damaged when a big-time loser uses it, and that Franken is such a loser. It sounds goofy to the casual reader, but it makes sense in the context of the claim they are alleging. Incidentally, IIRC, they do make an argument similar to the one you make in your last paragraph. It’s important to remember that a complaint doesn’t just include one claim: a plaintiff can allege several ways in which the defendant has damaged him in the same filing. That’s just what Fox did in their suit – their complaint alleges several alternate theories under which the book’s use of the phrase “fair and balanced” impairs its value to Fox as a trademark. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-suit-over-fair-and-balanced-is-without-merit/197169.md?page=1)