It’s not that a public figure can’t sue; it’s just that it’s very difficult for a public figure to sue with a reasonable chance of success. A public figure has to prove “malice,” which the courts define as a “reckless disregard for truth.” That’s a pretty slippery concept and difficult to prove in court. It’s one of the reasons show biz celebs usually ignore the garbage in supermarket tabloids.
It’s also much easier to become a public figure than you’d think.
How would you compare and contrast this with the Republican complaints of Michael Moore’s movies? Prior to wide release the works are condemned as partisan hack jobs by people who haven’t actually seen it. They’re working off of second hand reports and rumor. If Fahrenheit 9/11 was produced for TV instead of the theater, would we have been supportive of our republicans pressuring the company to bury the work?
I find it disturbing that the government should have this level of editorial control over what goes over the airwaves. I understand restricting “smut” on the broadcast spectrum, but restricting opinion goes too far.
This letter feels way too much like telling ABC that their news division is too partisan, and had better start broadcasting news the “right” way, else their licence goes down the toilet. We wouldn’t stand for pressuring a news division like that, I don’t think this pressure is appropriate either.
Michael Moore was not granted access to the public airwaves to show his work. If a network had produced Fahrenhuit 911, given it 4 hours commercial free in prime time, and then tried to market it in schools as educational then it would have more appropriate to question the tactics.
It may feel like telling ABC that their news division is too partisan because it IS too partisan. When you release the script ONLY to those from the right wing, you leave yourself open to such a charge.
So you feel it is appropriate for the government to control the network news? Feel free to SAY they’re partisan. When you threaten taking away their license because they’re partisan, you’re now controlling the news, and that’s going too far.
I agree that they shouldn’t market a piece as educational if it’s a partisan effort.
I think if the network news is found to have aired something that is patently false and partisan, then action is needed. The trouble as I see it is that the public is going to perceive ABC’s fakeumentary as factual, particularly when ABC claims it to be “based on the 9/11 Commission Report”. When parts of it are 180 degrees from that report, then it certainly appears that the network is telling lies to pursue a partisan agenda. This is I believe a misuse of the public airwaves.
Sorry, but this has no basis in fact. Go to www.opensecrets.org and look up which candidates received money from people employed by Disney. There are vastly more Democrats than Republicans on that list.
I find it hard to believe, based on your screen name, that you would broach any type of government interference with what goes over the airwaves, news or not.
When did it become the role of the US Senate to police the content of news programs or movies (obscenity aside)?
You can’t. For one thing, Moore’s films are factually accurate. For another thing, they weren’t shown on public airwaves and for a third thing, Moore doesn’t pretend to be an objective news source.
If it was aired by a network as “news,” then yes.
If it was presented as opinion, there wouldn’t be an issue. The problem is when it’s presented as news.
No doubt that’s just what your right wing radio overlords are going to tell you to think, nevertheless, the FCC is within it’s rights to sanction a network for lying about the news on public airwaves.
My problem with it is who get to decide what is and isn’t partisan. The party that’s in power can declare something false and partisan when it is just critical of them. Very dangerous precedent to have the government pressure a network to present the “correct” version of events.
I am indeed naturally averse to any form of censorship. But ABC is in my opinion committing a gross misuse of the airwaves by trying to pass off a pack of lies as being based on an official government report when in fact it contradicts that report repeatedly. If they came out and said “Here is a complete work of fiction, not based on any facts whatsoever” then I’d have no problem with it.
Since networks are permitted to broadcast for free over airwaves that don’t belong to them. There is no right to free speech on public airwaves and there is certainly no right to lie about the news.
Since the Communications Act of 1934.
why should obscenity be “aside?”
Really?
Boy, this sure looks like the “contrast” part of “compare and contrast”, I guess you found a way to do the impossible.
Prior to either work being viewed, how can we determine which is factual and which is fiction? This was a complaint about the right wing’s actions when Moore’s movie came out. They didn’t watch it, and condemned it as fiction based on second hand reports. These senators didn’t watch it and condemn it as fiction based on second hand reports.
I’ll keep this in mind when the Republicans start sanctioning networks for “lying” about something you think is true.
I agree with that sentiment. This would indeed set a dangerous precedent. But I also think that when the network sets out to smear the minority party just prior to an election, that this poses a threat to a two party system. News could be presented in such a way as to ensure Republican majorities in perpetuity, if enough people believe it. ABC is the one crossing the line here.
It’s not a question of partisanship or slant. It’s about lying. You can be as partisan as you want but you can’t use public airwaves to lie about the news.
If they lie about stuff that is provably false and present it as “news” over public airwaves, then they’d be justified.
That is the problem with censoring movies etc…
Whose opinion, if it’s mine then I’ll decide, if it’s you… if the senate had 70 Republican Senators, then what would be allowed on the airwaves?
It also is prsented as a docudrama, not a documentary.
Freedom of speech implies that people can hear all sorts of things, then make up their minds. If thats not the case then I’ll decide what goes on television.
It will be all Gilligan’s Island all the time
No right to freedom of speech on Television News?
That’s a stretch. When you bill something as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report” and then market it to schools as “educational”, then you’re not exactly promoting it as a work of fiction.
There is no freedom of speech on public airwaves. You don’t have to like it but that’s the law.
Not if it’s broadcast on public airwaves. Cable is a different story.