Pants on fire, but it's legal

[khaosworks]

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Not that I ever listened to what FOX had to say, but here's another reason.

Comments

Re: Misleading copy

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I don't think the appeals court was said in either story to have defended FOX's actions, nor was a conflict between state and federal legislation.

Essentially, the appeals court reversed the award because they found that the state whistle-blower statute did not apply in this case - because FOX had violated no "law, rule or regulation." In other words, while not explicitly saying that FOX's falsification of the news was correct, they did say that FOX's actions were not illegal, because the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule or regulation" but a guideline.

One can plausibly argue, therefore, that it is implied that FOX can legally falsify the news.