Walter Cronkite hosted a show back in the ‘50s called, “You Are There”. It was great for its time, a little history vignette, no special effects, no computer graphics, but still gave you the feel of being at the Alamo or Troy or the French Revolution. ……………….But back to the topic, can anyone be surprised that a channel that labels itself news but whose CEO says is 90% opinion and can’t be held accountable for its accuracy, has a credibility issue. Actually, Walter Cronkite was a witness in a trial in Florida in 2000 of Fox journalists vs Fox news. The Journalists had worked on a story about tainted milk that was embarrassing to Monsanto and the milk industry. They were told to change the story, they wouldn’t. Walter was called in to back up the argument that news journalism was expected to be honest and truthful. Fox lawyers argued that since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, news now had the standard of freedom of speech. The owners of the station could say whatever they wanted and their reporters could be required to say what the owners wanted or face dismissal. The lawyers argued that, “the broadcasting company is protected by the First Amendment and what the defendants say is the fact there is no law, rule or regulation to prohibit such distortion.”This was a landmark case, so important that Cronkite and Nader both testified.In 2003 it was reported like this, "In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
And Fox “news” viewers don’t care. They believe every word of every “journalist” on the channel, even when it’s shown they’re lying. When that happens, they believe it even more.
They still believe that Saddam was part of the 9/11 attacks.
They also believe he had nucular weapons.
And they believe that terrorism really was in its last throes. Every time.
There were amici curiae, letters in support of Fox’s side, filed by Gannett (USA Today), Cox, Post-Newsweek, Media General and Belo (bought by Gannett). There was much more than just honesty in the news at stake. The courts ruling gutted much of the whistle blower laws that had gone into effect. The two journalists in the Florida case were sued by Fox for exposing the secret that Fox news really wasn’t based on fact.The ruling says that a company, any company, because of the First Amendment, can say whatever it likes, truth, lies, facts or falsehoods. And that a company’s employees must comply with the wishes of the company on what to report or they can be fired. This ruling does not explicitly say that the news must lie, only that it can. However it does say that, if the company says lie, you must.If a company’s policy is to object to fantasy stories, lies, falsehoods or the lack of unbiasedness and suspends you for doing that, it’s their right too. That’s the difference….
Honestly I couldn’t care less what happens to O’Reilly..Though personally I think money will talk. If the smear campaign has enough impact to affect Fox News bottom line, he will be gone. Somehow I don’t think it will.
feverjr Premium Member about 9 years ago
Walter Cronkite hosted a show back in the ‘50s called, “You Are There”. It was great for its time, a little history vignette, no special effects, no computer graphics, but still gave you the feel of being at the Alamo or Troy or the French Revolution. ……………….But back to the topic, can anyone be surprised that a channel that labels itself news but whose CEO says is 90% opinion and can’t be held accountable for its accuracy, has a credibility issue. Actually, Walter Cronkite was a witness in a trial in Florida in 2000 of Fox journalists vs Fox news. The Journalists had worked on a story about tainted milk that was embarrassing to Monsanto and the milk industry. They were told to change the story, they wouldn’t. Walter was called in to back up the argument that news journalism was expected to be honest and truthful. Fox lawyers argued that since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, news now had the standard of freedom of speech. The owners of the station could say whatever they wanted and their reporters could be required to say what the owners wanted or face dismissal. The lawyers argued that, “the broadcasting company is protected by the First Amendment and what the defendants say is the fact there is no law, rule or regulation to prohibit such distortion.”This was a landmark case, so important that Cronkite and Nader both testified.In 2003 it was reported like this, "In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
braindead Premium Member about 9 years ago
And Fox “news” viewers don’t care. They believe every word of every “journalist” on the channel, even when it’s shown they’re lying. When that happens, they believe it even more.
They still believe that Saddam was part of the 9/11 attacks.
They also believe he had nucular weapons.
And they believe that terrorism really was in its last throes. Every time.
feverjr Premium Member about 9 years ago
There were amici curiae, letters in support of Fox’s side, filed by Gannett (USA Today), Cox, Post-Newsweek, Media General and Belo (bought by Gannett). There was much more than just honesty in the news at stake. The courts ruling gutted much of the whistle blower laws that had gone into effect. The two journalists in the Florida case were sued by Fox for exposing the secret that Fox news really wasn’t based on fact.The ruling says that a company, any company, because of the First Amendment, can say whatever it likes, truth, lies, facts or falsehoods. And that a company’s employees must comply with the wishes of the company on what to report or they can be fired. This ruling does not explicitly say that the news must lie, only that it can. However it does say that, if the company says lie, you must.If a company’s policy is to object to fantasy stories, lies, falsehoods or the lack of unbiasedness and suspends you for doing that, it’s their right too. That’s the difference….
feverjr Premium Member about 9 years ago
Before we pull the speck from our brother’s eye, we may want to remove the plank in our own.
echoraven about 9 years ago
I’m thinking Williams should be there along with Hillary ducking for cover.
echoraven about 9 years ago
Honestly I couldn’t care less what happens to O’Reilly..Though personally I think money will talk. If the smear campaign has enough impact to affect Fox News bottom line, he will be gone. Somehow I don’t think it will.