The Problem is: it’s Perfectly Legal for Them to Lie to Us.

[riqster]

https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-problem-is-its-perfectly-legal-for-them-to-lie-to-us/

Source info at the link.

This always surprises people: the Courts have ruled that news organizations can tell lies whenever they choose. Freedom of speech, don’tcha know. Jane Akre, an award-winning Journalist, was hired by Fox News affiliate WTVT to be, well, a journalist. You know, someone who reports news.

To Fox’s surprise, she and her team found some news. News that one of Fox’s sponsors did not like at all. So Fox ordered her to put some lies in the broadcast, to keep the sponsors happy and the money rolling in. Ms. Akre refused, on grounds of professional ethics.

Fox then fired her and her husband; they sued, and the court’s ruling, incredibly, made it clear that there was no law requiring that news organizations provide truthful content. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Lies are A-OK for those upon whom we rely for accurate reporting.

That ruling, as we look back, opened the Falsehood Floodgates the rest of the way for politicians and their BFFs in the Infotainment Industry. One may still sue for libel, although it is very hard to win and takes years. One may sue over a false advertisement, but those cases are likewise hard to win and take years as well.

Meanwhile, Fox and their compadres repeat their lies so often in the interim, the lies wind up being believed to be true by a large majority of Americans. A few recent examples: Benghazi, Obama’s birth certificate, and much of the Michael Brown coverage.

This writer loves him some First Amendment, yes he does. However, there is no reason not to be able to require that news providers at least put a label on lies: call ‘em “editorials”, or “speculative”, or “unproved”. It would be better to make the lies illegal, but the Roberts court ain’t gonna outlaw lies. Not with the current load of Bushbots and Reaganistas forming the majority, anyway.

So, Gentle Reader, remember that you really CAN’T trust anything you read in the papers or see on the TeeVee. You are being lied to 24/7/365 by at least some of the “news” sources you have heretofore relied upon for information. You’ll have to keep a line open to Snopes, FactCheck, Politifact, and other such sources before you can believe Thing One the newsies tell you.

Because in modern America, it’s legal for rich corporations, “news” outlets and politicians to lie to you whenever they want, about whatever they want, however they want.

[phantom power]

1. rec

[riqster]

2. Thanks.

[COLGATE4]

3. Imagine if the US had a system similar to that

of Canada, where Fox "News" can't be broadcast because they lie. Would do wonders here.

[riqster]

4. Agreed. But the First amendment makes it tricky.

[COLGATE4]

5. It's tricky but certainly not impossible.

After all, our law already has limitations or prohibitions on certain forms of speech: defamation, perjury, incitement to violence, child pornography, and, most tellingly, commercial speech (which enjoys much less protection than political speech). If we can regulate advertising we can certainly regulate lying when presented to the public as "news".

[riqster]

6. True. I offered a couple of workarounds in the OP.

[hughee99]

7. Some might call it being the "least untruthful possible". n/t

[riqster]

8. That was doubleplusgood!

[bluesbassman]

9. "Fraud" used to be considered a bad thing...

In today's political/economic environment it appears to be a prerequisite for power and profit.

[riqster]

10. It's so common it is rarely called out anymore.