It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Media now required to report "truth"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.


Instead, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."


The case turned on whether the 1st Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press includes a "neutral reporting privilege." Most judges around the nation have said the press does not enjoy this privilege. "

news.yahoo.com.../latimests/20050329/ts_latimes/justicesrefusetoshieldreportsoffalsecharges

This is very sad, the "press" can now get sued over printing lies. Its about time. The black robed tyrants got ONE right. I hope the "mainstream" media gets sued right out of business starting with CBS...........





posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Pure Propaganda - 1liner...nothing else to say here

Move Along



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
This is very sad, the "press" can now get sued over printing lies. Its about time. The black robed tyrants got ONE right. I hope the "mainstream" media gets sued right out of business starting with CBS...........



This is great news because it sounds like organizations like Fox News will get hit the hardest for repeating the lies of politicians and lobbyists on their station.

Just read the example given in that article:



In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for the paper said news organizations should be allowed to report what public figures say, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Good, maybe others, other than media will be held to the same.

Freedom of speech is one thing, slander is something else.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Just read the example given in that article:


In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for the paper said news organizations should be allowed to report what public figures say, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false.


Just keep trying to kill the truth don't you there Ollie-Base. This should make the "mainstream" media insurance rates go up, perhaps too high and they will have to actually tell the truth.

PS, Ollie loves your avatar, he laughs eveytime he sees it. Reminds him how he made congress look as stupid as they actually are.


[edit on 30-3-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Hey.. FOX first! CBS second!



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ishes
Hey.. FOX first! CBS second!


Hey fox tells only the truth and they are 'fair and balanced". Perhaps CNN is the one really worried. The whole saddam thing. You know hiding the truth so they could stay in country.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by Ishes
Hey.. FOX first! CBS second!


Hey fox tells only the truth and they are 'fair and balanced".



LMFAO I knew you where going to say that.


'fair and balanced" how can they say that with a straight face?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

LMFAO I knew you where going to say that.
'fair and balanced" how can they say that with a straight face?


Perhaps because it is true, more truth at Fox than any other network. Just because you may not like the data does not mean it isn't true. LA and NY times is the worst about truth and half truth. I hope they get nailed and soon.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid


Perhaps because it is true, more truth at Fox than any other network. Just because you may not like the data does not mean it isn't true. LA and NY times is the worst about truth and half truth. I hope they get nailed and soon.



If you say so, I will take my chances with a varity and not put all my needs in one media outlet.


[edit on 30-3-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Fox news was shown to be the most innacurate news outlet on t.v. in a study posted more than a year ago here. So it's almost a guarantee that they would be sued the most for lies.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Fox news was shown to be the most innacurate news outlet on t.v. in a study posted more than a year ago here. So it's almost a guarantee that they would be sued the most for lies.


data please or link. My info from media research says otherwise. thanks



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Fox? Fox is a bunch of........OH SHUT UP!




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Fox news was shown to be the most innacurate news outlet on t.v. in a study posted more than a year ago here. So it's almost a guarantee that they would be sued the most for lies.




Originally posted by DrHoracid
data please or link. My info from media research says otherwise. thanks


I'll help you out Doc! There's probably others but I think TheBandit was referring to this:




www.upi.com...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- It's official -- watching Fox News makes you ignorant.

To be precise, researchers from the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland found that those who relied on Fox for their news were more likely than those who relied on any other news source to have what the study called "significant misperceptions" about the war in Iraq.

Pollsters asked more than 9,000 Americans about three commonly held canards: that the United States had hard evidence Saddam Hussein had been working closely with al-Qaida; that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; and that world public opinion was in favor of the U.S.-led war.

Overall, a scary 60 percent believed at least one of these fallacies. Eight percent believed all three.

The most commonly held was -- unsurprisingly -- the Iraq/al-Qaida link. Fully 48 percent of respondents believed this. The totals for the other two were in the 20 percent to 25 percent range.

But among those who get their news from Fox, 80 percent had at least one "misperception" and 45 percent -- nearly six times the overall average -- had all three.






[edit on 30-3-2005 by kegs]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Hey fox tells only the truth and they are 'fair and balanced". Perhaps CNN is the one really worried. The whole saddam thing. You know hiding the truth so they could stay in country.

Fair And Balanced? Doctor, Please!

You mean the Big Star Bill O'Rilley? Does he Represent this slogan "Fair and Balanced? Is he representing the slogan by his big Ego and Arrogance infront of the cameras?

OR is it Ann Coulter that can represents "Fairness and Balance" with statements like THIS:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Its not terrorism thats bad, its Muslims who are bad! And Christianity will make them good! Those crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries, they were great for world peace werent they? And the carpet bombing of German cities is cited by many as an Allied war crime. Mostly all it did was kill a lot of innocent women and children.

So where do I find the "Fairness and Balance"?

Or do you want me to Shut Up?


The title of the topic says - US Media now required to report "truth" - and I have to agree with the words of AceOfBase:



This is great news because it sounds like organizations like Fox News will get hit the hardest for repeating the lies of politicians and lobbyists on their station.


Fair and Balanced My A**!



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
"NPR listeners, of course, tend to be better educated and wealthier than the average American, but the study found the same pattern of erroneous beliefs when they controlled for demographic factors like age, income and race.

Hardly hard science there people. Pretty "slanted" report.



Fox News Senior Vice President John Moody retorted that the study only asked people about "their impressions, not what they knew to be true.""

This line makes the whole point. In a poll its "how you ask the question".



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Fox news was shown to be the most innacurate news outlet on t.v. in a study posted more than a year ago here. So it's almost a guarantee that they would be sued the most for lies.


data please or link. My info from media research says otherwise. thanks


I'm sorry, I can't remember the link. It's somewhere in the archives here.

Btw... I don't think you're serious about this anyway for reasons you know very well...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
media.....truth.......media......truth.....media.....truth....

are you sure these two words are susposed to go together in the same sentence?

this is great news, as far as I am concerned. hope it helps in straightening out some of these media outlets that are just grabbing the stories and not checking the facts.

which is what part of the problem, by what I understand. The stations have increased their news coverage by hours...(and some now have 24 hr. news service.) this results in more news being needed. by what I understand, companies have stepped in to provide general, prepackaged news clips that they can use, edit, or whatever and show in their programs. That's how some channels managed to be showing what was basically government paid for propaganda supporting different programs for Bush without knowing it the source was our government.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
wow its amazing really, like the media will just magically open the flood gates on all of the information about our government. all of media is still controlled by 12 corperations who have our government in a choke hold. thats the bottom line, the truth is what they dictate it to be. or the ET's, which ever popular theory your going on.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
i can see this as a very bad thing. truth can be very subjective according to someones thinking. if you can be held liable for reporting slander against a pollitition (note that less political mud slinging from all sides would be refreshing), just think what else they could be held accountable for.

someone charge/sought in a murder. later that person is found not guilty, therefore the original reports would be false. so the person can now sue for slander. (not 100% a bad thing as many have never been able to get a job or is always suspect after vindicateing for themselves.).

reports of misconduct of government even company officials. how much is ever proven 100%, therefore could be labled as false. and action could be taken.

anything against the official gov. line could be considdered slander against the government. (after all the gov. is always right. they hold the "ultimate" truths). most of us would not see it this way but government boddies such as a court would.

if a news organization can be held responsible for reporting only 100% proven things how could they do their jobs how would they "know the truth"? it would become like a state controlled news service as only the government would be able to determin what is true or not. not something i would trust. keep in mind truth is subjective to the listeneror provider.

how many slanderous things turn out to be the truth? rememberthe scandle involveing a certain president and sex in the oval office? it was originaly venimantly denied. there for could not have been reported on as it was not proven. it was only because of media pressure that it came out and was taken to be court. if the news services were only alowed to report "truth" than it would not have gotten out at all.

i can even see a site like this haveing action against it. we are after all a conspiricy site therefore a lot ofspeculation, truthes, not trueth, slander, guesses ect. how many times do we see just here 2 oposit sides who claim truth? but the law would only apply to news services. wrong that is only the start. it is bringing something in slowly. first news then anything else that is not true will be targeted. eventualy it could go so far as to include religious books (religion requires faith remember nothing in any holy book is able to be considered apsolute truth by all).

i am all for hearing the truth myself it would be sooooo much easyer than haveing to make a judgement for myself. i would finaly be free to let others make my decisions for me. get real there is very little that can be considered to be apsolutely true. sciance? no not realy there are a lot of theries in sciance. religion? no definatly not religion requires faith. cout decisions? nope how many people "proven guilty" have been vindicated later? the sad fact is truth is nerver 100% proven therefore not true.

just think about the "truth" of 9-11 for example if a law requireing truthfullness was in place there would be no question that what the government told us was fact. as the government always tells us the truth. the whole point of freedom of the press is so that we can all be told what is going on includeing guesses and acusations so we may judge for ourselves what the "truth" is. that way we can question what the government does, or even what an individual or company does. a law such as this can only lead to government controll of what we hear it would be the governments truth. which we all know is worthless. the only way a news service should be held responsible is if they report something that they KNOW is not true when it is printed/broadcast. otherwise we will only be able to report and hear what the government wants, everything else will be a lie.you must be alowed the freedom to hear all sides and make a judgement for yourself.

just remember the news services first, ats next, eventualy even questioning something would be a crime. sounds like the controll the sssr used to practice that we all despised. do not let it happen here. it is comeing closer and closer. YOUR RIGHTS are in danger through laws such as this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join