Agreed completely. For me it’s a reminder that you shouldn’t take what commentators say as gospel, even if you like them.
Hmm… That’s a good point. There is a difference between opinion and calls to action.
The latter is what we have come to call “stochastic terrorism”.
I disagree with this. I think a show that styles itself as news, and knowingly lies, should suffer some repercussions. I don’t believe that it is in society’s best interest to defend willful lies.
(I’m putting “knowingly” and “willful” in bold because the normal retort is “Who decides what is the truth?” When the only thing that matters in this context is whether the speaker believed they had grounds for a claim).
The judge that let Carlson off the hook made the wrong call. Carlson’s show looks enough like a factual show that millions take everything he says as gospel truth.
Honestly, I find the “sponsored segment” shit on my local network news station to be horribly cringey.
John Oliver did a good show on the topic.
But – like “compensated endorser” only means “I’m being paid to say whatever the Fk they tell me to” if you’re aware enough to get that – “sponsored content” probably meets some questionable minimum legal disclaimer standard, but shoots far wide of those who are probably most vulnerable to whatever bullshit they’re selling.
And I’ve never seen anything even remotely resembling a disclaimer on Fox’s evening lineup. I’d wager that a vanishingly small % of Tuckster’s viewers have even heard of that “no reasonable person” defense, or would believe it (“HA! See how he owned the libs … again?!?”) if presented with it.
The information bubbles are nearly perfect these days, for those who bask comfortably within them.
I think that Fox News itself could and should be held liable for presenting itself as a news organization when a significant portion of what it broadcasts is not news.
But, those programs are considered to be opinion, and can be held to a lower factual standard than those considered to be news.
Yes, but they are very stupid people. Huh, I wonder if that should have been the counter argument. “No reasonable person would take what Carlson says as truth.” “Yes, but the people who watch Carlson are not reasonable, he intentionally attracts the ignorant and gullible who will believe his lies.”
And I’d agree that there should be a disclaimer. Not necessarily as self deprecating as some suggested, but certainly pointing out that these are opinion shows, and that you should not rely on them for factual information without checking with a legitimate source.
Instead of a needed disclaimer, what is happening behind the scenes is “Wink, wink. We pulled a fast one on those lefties-they believed that crap we fed them about being a parody show-those idiots!”.
I don’t think that anyone on the left actually believes that. The fast one that they are pulling is the people on the right who believe that it is factual.
I don’t think Fox gives a shit about what the Left believes. Their target is the right, and they are hitting the bullseye with their bullshit. Their audience has been prepped to think that pwning the Libs is more important that being factual.
What I said was in response to:
Agreed, and I think that’s what I just said.
Having met their audience, I’ll agree. In fact, they are not only being fed lies, they also see it as freeing them to tell their own. Fox viewers will just make things up on the spot to act as a contradiction to facts. They know that they are lying, but it doesn’t matter, as long as they “win” the conversation, and they only “win” if the other person loses, and the other person loses if they get upset about all the lying.
I’ve tried explaining to my mother that these “wins” of hers come at a cost. She doesn’t care, she would rather drive away what is left of her family than to not take any opportunity to win.
Even if they did have a disclaimer their audience would just conclude that Fox was forced to put it up as part of the Deep State’s agenda to suppress the Truth, and so disregard it, the same way we would disregard a signed confession to war crimes from a Ukrainian soldier in Russian custody.
I think “unreasonable” is better (though still not ideal), because I have known otherwise bright people who believed crap on FOX.
What they share in common is a poor understanding of skepticism and standards of evidence. They are not applying reasoning to what they’re hearing.
I think it could make a dent for some on the margins. I mean, in a hypothetical ideal reality, the court would order that their main presenters each have to record a disclaimer that goes out before their show. I think it would make a difference for some to see their trusted sage telling them, say, “The following programme is for entertainment purposes only, and may often include factually false information”.
Which cuts to the heart of “political correctness” or “virtue signalling”, both of which are basically accusations of “you don’t believe the thing you are professing, and are only doing it for social benefits within your tribe”. The right is quick to accuse others of it because they know the concept so well.
And they can’t conceive that anyone would act virtuous for the sake of doing the correct thing.
How do you write a law like this that doesn’t ban The Daily Show?
Yeah, that would be really difficult. There are a lot of shows that mix humor and information, and as long as they don’t present themselves as an actual news program they are able to stay out of trouble.
Even Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live does this.
Two answers:
-
You don’t. On the Daily Show, they do state some facts in a sober way, as empirical facts. Last Week Tonight do this even more. If their facts are just made up out of whole cloth, then yeah, they can suffer the same repercussions as the opinion shows.
After all, the situation today is that they can be sued for defamation. My opinion is merely that it is in the public interest to have willful lies about, say, covid vaccines to have the same potential repercussions as willful lies about, say, ExxonMobil. -
Yes there should be an exception for satire and humor. I don’t think it’s that difficult in practice to find the difference. Is the presenter doing an humorously over the top caricature, that a live audience is laughing at?
Or, more crucially, if asked to explain the joke, can they?
People like Tucker Carlson play the “It was a joke” card all the time, and I wish he would be asked to explain the joke. When he said he was rooting for Russia, and emphasized he was serious, what was the joke? (NB: I’m not saying that “rooting for Russia” should have any repercussions, I am just speaking generally about the joke defence for a moment).
Fox – coming as a shock to absolutely nobody – has wrapped itself in both the flag and the Constitution, trotting out the “Why do YOU hate America” defense:
A $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election is an assault on the First Amendment, attorneys for the cable news giant argued in a counterclaim unsealed Thursday.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure I once read that even “Freedom of Speech” doesn’t imply freedom FROM consequences.
And so it goes.
Incidentally, this isn’t new. It’s just the Otter Defense rehashed.
I found this web site helpful:
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges
That was written with the intention of guiding web site content, but it seems like it would apply the same to a TV show. As you can see, it’s not a simple black-and-white situation.
Another site talks about suing the media for defamation.
The First Amendment protects the right of news organizations (and individuals) to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. Even offensive statements are protected as long as they are “pure opinions” – statements that cannot be proven true or false. This protection is otherwise referred to as the opinion defense and fair comment privilege.
For the sake of example, say you make the comment, “I think the mayor is a jerk.” Such a statement expresses a pure opinion that could neither be proven nor disproven and is thus protected speech.
But, a statement that implies false underlying facts may still be defamatory. For instance, stating “The congressman is a drug dealer” can lead a reader to assume that you must have some facts to back up your claim. Unless you have facts that you are willing to share in support of your claim, you could be liable for defamation.
Both the Maddow case that was dismissed, as well as the Carlson case that were dismissed, involved evaluating the tone and statements and determined that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider either to be offering facts. In Carlson’s case, they claimed that he uses hyperbole constantly, and just makes up or exaggerates things. Even when he says, “this is a fact,” that isn’t seen as presenting a fact, because the “facts” are ridiculous hyperbole. The same way that when Maddow said that OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” that wasn’t stating a fact even though the words she used when taken on their own (and out of context) seem to be stressing that she’s trying to convey factual information.
I can’t say I am in full agreement, but I can see the potential harm in trying to stifle this speech.
Those still following this thread should really take the few minutes necessary and read this:
Shocked … but not at all surprised.
But we DO learn a few things.