Why isn't it ILLEGAL to broadcast LIES?

[FormerDittoHead]

Seriously. False Advertising is against the law, why isn't "selling false ideas" treated the same way?

Speech *is* regulated on broadcast media. It SHOULD be. It's illegal to discuss oral sex at certain times, (fine my me, I'm a parent), but if you say something that's an out-and-out lie on FCC regulated space, it's OK?

BTW: the question is RHETORICAL - you needn't give us the history of the FCC deregulation / equal time provisions or any such thing, I'm just saying that I think that, beyond defamation or slander, to a certain extent, lying on broadcast media SHOULD be illegal.

[reprehensor]

1. The Media Can Legally Lie.

The Media Can Legally Lie



CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

more@link

[Gyre]

4. I read the link.

But there's no link to the appellate ruling. I'd like to see the "holding" by the court, and the "issue" in that case.

Gyre

[FormerDittoHead]

5. I understand...

...but my point was that it SHOULD be illegal.

That's why I mentioned the bit about it being a rhetorical question...

[Ironpost]

2. Then the bush cartel wouldn't be able to say anything

sense its all lies

[Tace]

3. It Doesn't Say Anything About Lying In the 10 Commandments

Well, it does mention "false witness." : )

[Meeker Morgan]

6. ILLEGAL to broadcast LIES?

Pretty dangerous territory, consider who "the law" is these days.

It's covered by freedom of speech, otherwise everybody but the government would be silenced for fear of being prosecuted as a liar.

[Postman]

7. What is a lie?

If you legitimately report something today that looks as if it is true today but later turns out not to be true, was the original report a "lie"?

[FormerDittoHead]

9. Intent is a part of it..

I'm talking about saying something false that can be proven the speaker KNEW to otherwise not be true at the time.

Perhaps it's a high standard, but for Pete's sake, we don't even have THAT today...

[AllegroRondo]

8. Fine line here

Broadcasting something that is false, while not illegal, is highly unethical.

But- if you can show that you were harmed by information that a station knew to be false when they broadcast it, you may have a serious case.

For example - the Monsanto/BGH story. Fox and the Florida station knew they were broadcasting false information about BGH and its harmful effects. If you could show that you got cancer because of BHG, and that this story affected your decision to buy/consume milk with BGH, you would have a good case against the station and Monsanto.

[forgethell]

10. Probably because,

just because you or I think it is a lie, doesn't mean that it is. Especially when it is an opinion.

Political speech should be absolutely free. Otherwise the dictators of either the left or the right will take over.

Just because you are unable to convince the public of the justice of your cause simply does not mean that you should be allowed to shut your opponents up.

[FormerDittoHead]

11. OK, let me clarify.

First off, I'm talking about FCC licenses here. I thought I made that clear.

I'm not talking about philosophy, I'm talking about saying things are facts (not opinions or viewpoints) when you KNOW it's not the case, or you are otherwise stating something is a fact when you don't know it one way or the other.

In court, you could go to jail for doing this.

Third time around the block here, but false advertising is illegal, so it's not as if there aren't limits placed upon speech, even clean speech.

Here's a recent example. This is not opinion. This is not political speech. This is not philosophy. This isn't even "spin". This is saying something is a fact without it being the case at all.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504190001

"...Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the "wage gap" between male and female workers -- which reflects that working women currently make only 76 cents for every dollar that men earn -- is a "BS ... 30-year-old figure." Limbaugh insisted that the true wage gap has "changed" but that the statistic hasn't been "update." ...

...In fact, the 76 cents figure is derived from income data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for full-time working men and women in 2003.

(the audio clip is at the link above)

Now, if an broadcast advertiser made such a claim, do you think that a New York minute would pass before the *government* would make them change it?

Now if Limbaugh said, "I don't know this, but I think..." "I believe..." "One person told me..." "It seems to me..." this would be different.

Nor am I talking about fiction, like this "end of the world" TV movie that's currently playing. It projects a hidious agenda, but in the end, it's fiction.

But things are simply wrong when one has "license" (pun intended) to go on the air and say things are facts when they simply aren't true. I don't see how that serves the community, and I believe that SHOULD be a standard.

I'm not afraid of this standard being held to everyone. I have to say that if the Democrats were in power and in control of talk radio, it would TROUBLE ME to think that Democratic talk radio would be misreprenting lies as FACTS.

Again, SOMEHOW obscenity is a matter of perspective yet it *IS* illegal on broadcast.

I think, however, that presenting falsehoods as fact is MORE hurtful to our society than obscenities...

I'm not talking about newspapers or other non-regulated speech. I'm talking about the FCC, which USED to have "equal time" provisions, etc, so don't say that it "can't be done".

What's next? Strike the laws to protect oneself of liable and slander?

[forgethell]

12. Anytime you

use statistics likde that, you are really in the realm of cherry-picking to make your point. Not lies, opinions.

No, I disagree with you. Otherwise, every politician we have should go to jail, right now. I don't just mean the Republicans, either.

Besides, who decides?? On complex issues, what basis do they use? Nope, the best way is to let everybody speak their piece, and let the public decide. Despite one or two recent setbacks, I have a lot more faith in the inherent intelligence and bul-shit detecting ability than I do of "truth" bureaucrats.