The Media Can Legally Lie

[Resurrection]

Today I learned that TV ‘News’ media can lie to its audiences and still be legally protected.I learned that not only can it do so, but they feel that it's acceptable to do...
When we all clamor for Freedom of Press,how much freedom is too much?


------


In 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Todd Wilson, two investigative reporters for FOX News, decided to do a story on the health risks of bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
“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 Todd sued the FOX station for having wrongfully fired them and initially won the case, but the verdict was overturned in an appeals court, in which FOX made the case that there were no written rules against lying and distorting facts in the media. They never denied they had asked Akre to lie, but said it was their right to do so. The court decided 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.”

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

-----------

The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored

Jane Akre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[slikrapid]

When we all clamor for Freedom of Press,how much freedom is too much?

the problem here may be in the perception of what this kind of freedom is referring to, its not supposed to mean that they are free to write whatever they want, but rather that they should be (as much as possible) free from external influences (editors, owners, shareholders, influential parties, governments) that tend to impose certain bias & interests upon that which is being written - its supposed to give them freedom to collect data and make a highly impartial/independent/objective story about it, though still keeping in mind to adhere to ethical/profession standards, acceptable social behavior, ie. to professionally exercise their power/duties/responsibilities to the best of their knowledge/ability - the intention is to have the media as an informative & critical element of the society that serves the public with truthfulness & criticism, however this field has long since been corrupted into serving corporate (governmental too, to a certain extent) interests and has been transformed into a machinery of deception/sensationalism/triviality/fear-mongering/impartiality, heavily relying on financial means that steer their more or less temporary allegiance - they have become the system's (and/or that of powerful groups/individuals) extended arm - the pessimistic view would be that this was actually the original idea behind the creation/rise of media industry itself, the optimistic one would be that it got corrupted along the way

today the media & entertainment industry (primarily the mainstream ones, to a less extent also the alternative ones) are the two main ('industrial') elements of creating/steering/manipulating public opinion & influencing human behavior, which besides creating profit itself is their core purpose in the society - as expected, such tendencies do not stop/end there, but are rather widespread in all other fields of human activity as well (education, science, politics,...)