What are your opinions on that and how do you think we can fix the problem?
Did anyone, anywhere think that was news and not a ad?
And of course the NYT would take a opportunity to snipe that their rival, not to mention sulk that the LA paper got the $ and the NYT didnt. Sour grapes.
My opinion of what is going on is rather apparent from my previous post to that one.
I’m cross posting this to ask you to clarify your specific statements about whether the media misrepresented Powell’s defense:
So first, her attorney said:
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” writes her attorney Lawrence Joseph in a motion to dismiss the case against Powell.
Now they are saying (from this post):
“I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false.”
This is not a gotcha, nor me trying to be cryptic. I’m asking you to explain to me your earlier statement about misrepresentation by the media on this specific detail. I’m perfectly willing to accept that I’m missing some important nuance in what you meant when you made that claim.
Please point out my error.
You mean this Why no mention of the vast right wing campaign to destroy the then-acceptable sources of news and information and replace it with highly prejudiced political hackery, Velocity ?
Which is almost identical to the post i replied to. You arent debating, you are just asking questions.
Give us your opinion and your solution.
Why do you think there’s a solution?
What those attorneys are saying is exactly what I’ve been posting. I’m at somewhat of a loss in understanding how people can fail to understand the distinction when it’s pointed out.
But for starts, do you understand the distinction that the slander law draws between stating opinion and stating fact? I believe this is pretty well established, and anyone who follows cases involving libel and slander would have encountered it.
Here’s a current case in which the NYT is defending against a suit by Project Veritas by arguing (among other things) that their news article also contained opinion and is protected on that basis (see page 5).
Well, there is a small solution, but it is limited- tell the FCC to regulate out and out damaging lies on regulated broadcast media. This will tone down Fox TV news (not Fox News, which is cable) and put many conservative talk radio show liars out of business.
Admittedly, my solution is limited and small.
The problems isnt so much MSM has a issue, it is that the conservative media lies and discredits the MSM.
Small solution, like a bandaid, but it is Constitutional and might help.
Do you have a solution or are you Just Asking Questions?
Myself, I’m exploring the problem. That’s not the same as JAQing off.
As I’ve said, I think that a major part of the reason why non-maga people are less impressed with the MSM is because of side effects brought on by the 24-hour news cycle and increased competition from various online sources. I doubt this is correctable without burning the internet to the ground.
Regarding liars in media, I’ve occasionally wondered why statements of fact that are of a slanderous nature and are clearly lies aren’t considered slander. No, the bullshit proposed above where a flat unqualified statement of fact should be considered an opinion doesn’t fly - that crap should be prosecutable. Which makes me wonder why half of right wing talking heads haven’t been crushed by legal suits.
If it’s just a matter of their victims not having money, perhaps the government could make it a policy to bring suits against the slanderers, as class-action lawsuits with the entire populace as the victims. With honesty (or proof that you at least tried to do honest research) as your only defense!
I gave my opinion, and I never claimed to have “my” solution. My position is that trying to divert attention to a problem that obviously is too wide-ranging to solve is a stall tactic.
To my unlawyerly eye, the bolded statements which I quoted are a contradiction. Are they not a contradiction to your trained eye?
I do not, and have no interest in following libel and slander cases. I’m not even disputing what the law dictates. It may very well be the outcome that the case against Powell is dismissed by the court.
All I’m trying to understand is why you continue to insist that the media said “B” when Powell claimed “A”. There is a bolded example that Powell’s team is trying to have it both ways, in their own words, and the media is reporting exactly that without misrepresentation. Am I still mistaken on that point?
FTR, I am not a lawyer. I’ve seen a lot of cases where this distinction is relevant, however.
And I would say the converse. It may well be that Powell’s legal argument here is meritless and will be thrown out by the court (i.e. the court may find that her statements were statements of fact and not opinion, contra her claim). But the argument she’s making is addressed to the specific legal standard in effect. If you’re unwilling to understand the legal distinction, then you will possibly have a harder time understanding what she’s saying.
The difference between opinion and fact is not a distinction between right and wrong. An opinion can be right and an assertion of fact can be wrong, and vice versa. If someone says “what I/you/he/she said was opinion and not fact”, they’re not making any judgement on the correctness of that statement. Only whether it’s properly characterized as opinion or fact. And if someone says “any reasonable person would understand that what I/you/he/she said was opinion and not fact”, they’re not making a statement as to how correct a reasonable person would find that statement. Only whether a reasonable person would characterize it as opinion or fact.
The argument that Powell is making here is essentially (from a structural standpoint) the same as the one the NYT is making in their defense against Project Veritas. Neither is conceding that their opinions are wrong, or that any reasonable person would think they’re wrong. Only that a reasonable person would understand that they’re opinions and not facts, and this distinction - if accepted by the court - should be reason to dismiss. That’s all.
We may be at an impasse here.
IANAL but I thought “opinion” carried a different meaning when lawyers use it. I interpret it to mean that a lawyer can’t guarantee a result, but their opinion is (whatever). And their opinion is based on their training, knowledge of the law, jury selection, current trends, and probably numerous other things—it is far more informed than a lay person’s.
So Powell’s opinion means (to me) that as a licensed, experienced, practicing attorney she thought there was sufficient good evidence etc. and it would fly in a court of law, no matter what John Q Public might think. And there are enough specific claims that are demonstrably true or false that the defense looks pretty lame to me.
When I was a kid, if I told my mom that I was sick on Friday morning, I couldn’t suddenly recover in time to attend the Friday night football game. Likewise there ought to be consequences for lawyers spreading things that reasonable people couldn’t believe to be true. It shouldn’t be swept under the rug. I sure hope they find a way to punish her. Disbarment would be a start.
As far as MSM goes, I remember someone interviewing Ted Turner when CNN launched, and the undercurrent of it was “Who would possibly watch TV 24 hours?” I think it was when Baby Jessica fell down the well in Texas and CNN didn’t have to cut away like the networks that it really took off.
Cable expanded, the internet took off, and now there are any number of “news” sources. In order to survive they need people to tune in. In order to thrive, they need to beat the competition. The lines between fact and opinion are mighty obscure, as these past years have shown. And if the courts can’t find anybody guilty, there’s no incentive to tell the truth. The more sensational the story, the more viewers etc. Can the courts keep up with it all?
And if someone does pursue the truth, here’s another lame excuse: “Sorry, I was psychotic when I said that.”
But he would not be convicted by a jury of his peers,
Still psychotic after all these years
Whoa, psychotic, psychotic, still psychotic after all these years.
Trump also wanted to use the FCC to regulate what he sees as a biased lying media. He didn’t manage to sufficiently politicize the FCC to achieve his goal there:
The U.S. has a strong tradition of rotation in office. Consider what the GOP will do once a more directly politicized FCC becomes the norm.
As for restoring public faith in the mainstream media, it is an impossible goal. As a subscriber to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Philadelphia Inquirer, my advice to their editors is to be as non-partisan in their approach, without knowingly printing clear lies, as is possible. And they should occasionally print op eds written by influential people, left and right, who do lie, erring on the side of opinion diversity. I just say this because I don’t want to live in a progressive bubble. However, this will do nothing to restore public faith. The people who distrust those papers rarely read them and do not subscribe.
As to the government, the problem of restoring public trust in the media is profoundly outside it’s legitimate wheelhouse.
Agreed and thanks for taking the time to explain the legal intricacies.
[Bolding mine]
I don’t think the actual straight news reporting from Fox News is too slanted. They have some good journalists. The problem is their opinion shows drive the channel as a whole so that’s what it’s known for.
We have had a whole thread on this.
Fox news doesnt lie that much, but when all the rest of the media is busy covering a critical story that Fox doesnt like, they cover something else.
IMHO, another issue is that some conservatives seem to believe in some news equivalent of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: That for every conservative bad behavior, there exists an equal and opposite liberal bad behavior.
So when the news is all about conservatives being embroiled in scandal, the viewers get exasperated, “Why isn’t there equal coverage of liberal scandals?”
Not that there aren’t liberal scandals. But it isn’t necessarily an equal 1:1 ratio.
What is this “Fox TV News” that is broadcast and hence different from the Fox New Network on cable? Do you mean local news on Fox affiliates? Because those are usually quite removed from Fox’s cable news channel.
I worked in news for the Fox affiliate KTVU in San Francisco (physically in Oakland). I assure you that like most news in the Bay Area we were comfortably liberal. Our day-to-day news operation had nothing to do with Fox News except we shared video feeds of news items.
There is no national Fox News broadcast programming that I know of.
Yes. The News on a Fox Broadcast Channel. They arent so bad, true, but still.