Avatar2go wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

Not talking about free speech, talking about news, which is supposed to have journalistic standards of truth, fact and accuracy. Fox defines itself as entertainment to avoid those standards, but many of their followers accept it as news.

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

LabQuest wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

Not talking about free speech, talking about news, which is supposed to have journalistic standards of truth, fact and accuracy. Fox defines itself as entertainment to avoid those standards, but many of their followers accept it as news.

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

No.
News is Who , what, when, where, how, and with direct quotations(why).

Anything to sensationalize it in a headline, or add editorial, makes it biased.

casinterest wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Not talking about free speech, talking about news, which is supposed to have journalistic standards of truth, fact and accuracy. Fox defines itself as entertainment to avoid those standards, but many of their followers accept it as news.

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

No.
News is Who , what, when, where, how, and with direct quotations(why).

Anything to sensationalize it in a headline, or add editorial, makes it biased.

Its all just free speech at the end of the day. Just because someone does it poorly doesn't mean they should be silenced or sued.

LabQuest wrote:

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

Unfortunately the law disagrees with you. Publishing false statements in the context of the news, and as the truth with the expectation of journalistic standards, creates liability if the statements are demonstrably false.

However you can stand on a street corner and make those same statements, under the First Amendment right of free speech, without liability, because there is no expectation of representation or adherence to standards of truth in that context.

Avatar2go wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

Unfortunately the law disagrees with you. Publishing false statements in the context of the news, and as the truth with the expectation of journalistic standards, creates liability if the statements are demonstrably false.

However you can stand on a street corner and make those same statements, under the First Amendment right of free speech, without liability, because there is no expectation of representation or adherence to standards of truth in that context.

That's not the government.

LabQuest wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

Unfortunately the law disagrees with you. Publishing false statements in the context of the news, and as the truth with the expectation of journalistic standards, creates liability if the statements are demonstrably false.

However you can stand on a street corner and make those same statements, under the First Amendment right of free speech, without liability, because there is no expectation of representation or adherence to standards of truth in that context.

That's not the government.

It's civil law which applies to private entities, and is created by the legislature and administered by the judiciary (the government). The topic of this thread is lawsuits against Fox, which falls under civil law.

LabQuest wrote:

casinterest wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

There's no difference between "news" and "speech."

ALL news is biased in some ways or another.

No.
News is Who , what, when, where, how, and with direct quotations(why).

Anything to sensationalize it in a headline, or add editorial, makes it biased.

Its all just free speech at the end of the day. Just because someone does it poorly doesn't mean they should be silenced or sued.

No, but they should be ignored. Unfortunately we have very bad civic minded folks that think that "News" means news on Fox. They don't realize that they are being baited by agenda driven folks that stir up hate and rear with attacks on individuals, ethnic groups, sexuality, politics,. and color their speech with subliminal messaging intended to drive the thought process of the audience. By the time you get to the real heart of what is news, and what politicians are actually voting on, the viewer already is biased to a point that they will not entertain the policy in question with enough thought about how applicable it really is..

LabQuest wrote:

Its all just free speech at the end of the day. Just because someone does it poorly doesn't mean they should be silenced or sued.

What fox news does isn't done poorly. It's done expertly, it's done on purpose.

There used to be something called journalistic standards. I.e it's your duty to investigate and publish what the truth is. Not what your opinion of the truth is.

In many other parts of the world we have free speach, but it doesn't come without consequences and you aren't just allowed to say whatever you like without factual, evidence to back it up. If it's blatantly not true then there are consequences. In the US these consequences can be seen with what's happening to Alex Jones. It's just a shame it took so long and ruined lives before it happened. Many countries also have some kind of standards for broadcasters as part of the license agreements - you pay to use the airwaves / satellite / cable whatever then you uphold certain standards. I'm sure many in the US will call that a strangle on free speech but for the rest of us it keeps the nut jobs where they belong.

It also seems in this day and age of social media that people are incredibly impressionable and lack a huge amount of critical thinking. They are also very lazy so won't try and look and multiple sources before forming an opinion. Lack of education also doesn't help.

My favourite adage of the current time.. just because you can do or say something doesn't mean you have to.


You said earlier

LabQuest wrote:

ALL news is biased in some ways or another..

That's just not true. News can be entirely factual, and backed up with facts that are not open to interpretation (at least in any normal universe). Or at least they are backed up by opinions from experts that are entirely legitimate in their field and well reknown. It's only the last 10 -15 years that news has become a tool (by both sides but more the right) to push agenda's by presenting what they think (or are told what to say) is true as fact.

It's incredibly dangerous to a democracy. And the problem is, as is often the case, what happens in the US is exported elsewhere and others suffer. Which is why people like me who don't live in the US get so annoyed when your opinions, your ideals are exported elsewhere.

Reinhardt wrote:

It also seems in this day and age of social media that people are incredibly impressionable and lack a huge amount of critical thinking. They are also very lazy so won't try and look and multiple sources before forming an opinion. Lack of education also doesn't help.

Those people have always existed. Social media didn't change anything except their visibility.

luckyone wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

It also seems in this day and age of social media that people are incredibly impressionable and lack a huge amount of critical thinking. They are also very lazy so won't try and look and multiple sources before forming an opinion. Lack of education also doesn't help.

Those people have always existed. Social media didn't change anything except their visibility.

Social media has allowed those idiots to gather in ways they could not previously. I used to be unaware of the collective name for idiots, but now I believe it's a "state".

Dominion are taking legal action against Fox for alleged defamation. The claim is for $1.6 billion. While the Fox presenters concerned may have retracted their allegedly defamatory statements, I suppose that those statements - presumably false since they were later retracted - have dented Dominion's reputation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNi29pYC8NQ (MSNBC video)

The Dominion lawsuit against Fox News is now in the final discovery stages. The parties are in court arguing over Fox executive contracts which establish their roles in defining broadcast content.

Dominion has exposed e-mail that documents the intense pressure brought to bear on Fox by team Trump, which began after the declaration that Biden had won Arizona. The Fox news hosts largely sided with Trump, and continued making baseless claims, as well as booking appearances by Trump and his representatives to "substantiate" those claims.

Meanwhile the Fox executives labeled the Trump advocates as "crazies" and tried to end the news segment bookings. Producers were pleading with management to intervene on the false claims. But it appears that instead, Fox decided to redesignate the offenders as opinion hosts, rather than news hosts. That has been a long-standing Fox strategy to avoid responsibility.

So the case will hinge on whether the Fox executive responses constitute malice. Dominion can now establish that management knew the claims were false, but allowed them to continue. As motive, Dominion cites the drop in ratings as viewers moved to the more conservative outlets promoted by Trump, which continued to support his claims. Thus Fox had a financial incentive to sustain the falsehoods, since to openly debunk them would have meant catastrophic losses in the thier base viewership.

Fox is arguing that executives were "far removed" from the on-air editorial content decisions, but Dominion has exposed daily broadcast meeting minutes where Fox executives were present.

Fox is also arguing that election fraud claims were "inherently newsworthy", as were the individuals making those claims, such as then-President Trump and his administration officials. And thus were rightly covered in the news. And that Dominion is attempting to stifle journalistic freedom and free speech.

Perhaps the most egregious Fox argument, is to assert journalistic privilege for the many Fox hosts (Bartiromo, Pirro, Hannity, Dobbs, Carlson) that Dominion is asking to depose, shielding them under the guise of protected sources. While at the same time, Fox has defended their statements as being opinion, and not news.

I think Fox is throwing everything at the wall here, to see what will stick. Not unlike Trump's own defenses.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06/11271499 ... =18&f=1001

Avatar2go wrote:

The Dominion lawsuit against Fox News is now in the final discovery stages. The parties are in court arguing over Fox executive contracts which establish their roles in defining broadcast content.

Dominion has exposed e-mail that documents the intense pressure brought to bear on Fox by team Trump, which began after the declaration that Biden had won Arizona. The Fox news hosts largely sided with Trump, and continued making baseless claims, as well as booking appearances by Trump and his representatives to "substantiate" those claims.

Meanwhile the Fox executives labeled the Trump advocates as "crazies" and tried to end the news segment bookings. Producers were pleading with management to intervene on the false claims. But it appears that instead, Fox decided to redesignate the offenders as opinion hosts, rather than news hosts. That has been a long-standing Fox strategy to avoid responsibility.

So the case will hinge on whether the Fox executive responses constitute malice. Dominion can now establish that management knew the claims were false, but allowed them to continue. As motive, Dominion cites the drop in ratings as viewers moved to the more conservative outlets promoted by Trump, which continued to support his claims. Thus Fox had a financial incentive to sustain the falsehoods, since to openly debunk them would have meant catastrophic losses in the thier base viewership.

Fox is arguing that executives were "far removed" from the on-air editorial content decisions, but Dominion has exposed daily broadcast meeting minutes where Fox executives were present.

Fox is also arguing that election fraud claims were "inherently newsworthy", as were the individuals making those claims, such as then-President Trump and his administration officials. And thus were rightly covered in the news. And that Dominion is attempting to stifle journalistic freedom and free speech.

Perhaps the most egregious Fox argument, is to assert journalistic privilege for the many Fox hosts (Bartiromo, Pirro, Hannity, Dobbs, Carlson) that Dominion is asking to depose, shielding them under the guise of protected sources. While at the same time, Fox has defended their statements as being opinion, and not news.

I think Fox is throwing everything at the wall here, to see what will stick. Not unlike Trump's own defenses.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06/11271499 ... =18&f=1001

It will be interesting to see if the judge allows Fox to do what they are doing. Openly protecting their on air talent by pressing forth Journalistic privilege, but then making them "Opinon Hosts" I hoe Dominion's lawyers hightlight Fox's Chyron's that run with "Breaking News" all over these broadcasts.

Fox broadcasts lies to keep their viewers angry and addicted. It isn't entertainment when they are ruining democracy and other companies /peoples livelihoods.

CNN is the same, how much did they pay for sandman’s lawsuit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1Z70CL

dmg626 wrote:

CNN is the same, how much did they pay for sandman’s lawsuit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1Z70CL

That was one person.
How much should Fox pay for consistantly lying:?

Remember Fox doesn't base itself on news. Only on how many blank eyelids they can get to watch the advertisers.

dmg626 wrote:

CNN is the same, how much did they pay for sandman’s lawsuit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1Z70CL

That was also a settlement, to avoid trial. On every case where Sandman has gone to trial, he has lost. He likely would have lost the CNN case as well.

Also there is no equivalence between a single incident of mistaken & inaccurate reporting, and the continuous barrage of disinformation from Fox about the stolen election, which still goes on today. The only concession made by Fox, is that they no longer claim that voting machines were compromised, but only because they were sued to stop the false claims.

casinterest wrote:

That was one person.
How much should Fox pay for consistantly lying:?

Remember Fox doesn't base itself on news. Only on how many blank eyelids they can get to watch the advertisers.

How about ask Fox News to pay nothing but force them to rebrand as Fox Opinion? They are not news.

I am old enough to remember when we had actual news in this country. Those broadcasting news would have to be neutral. But, since the Fairness Doctrine was removed, all that went out the window. Now, we have one side screaming that Fox is the only news source because CNN reports on what Fox does not. Or something. The point is: we have not had news in this country since the mid-1980s. If it bleeds, it leads. Generate as many clicks as possible. Drive revenue. That's all that matters. Money, money, money but not informing the public.

Agree with seb146. Once news became commercialized and a profit center for the networks, objectivity went out the window.

The one distinction I would make, is that MSNBC and CNN, despite imparting their own slant to the news, do generally try to be factual. You may disagree with their interpretation or presentation of the facts, but the facts do generally tend to be right.

With Fox, you have bending or dismissal of the facts (misinformation), as well as outright invention of the facts (disinformation). Together with the slant they too impart, they weave a story that is more fiction than fact, but that they know will keep their viewers glued, as casinterest said.

This is why the Dominion case has weight, they will be able to show that sustaining the Big Lie was in the financial interests of Fox, and worked to their benefit. And that Fox understood the Big Lie to be false. In civil court, that's all they need to prove malice.

Avatar2go wrote:

The one distinction I would make, is that MSNBC and CNN, despite imparting their own slant to the news, do generally try to be factual. You may disagree with their interpretation or presentation of the facts, but the facts do generally tend to be right.

With Fox, you have bending or dismissal of the facts (misinformation), as well as outright invention of the facts (disinformation). Together with the slant they too impart, they weave a story that is more fiction than fact, but that they know will keep their viewers glued, as casinterest said.

Being in UK I do not have access to many US news stations. I would say, though, that in my experience

Fox makes it up as it goes along
CNN sticks more closely to facts (but selectively)

Given that both seem to interview people who are strong adherents of the stations' political persuasion and harsh critics of the opposite, I see them both as political propaganda platforms. Since I watch TV news because I want to hear the facts (and all the facts) of a matter, I find both fail badly as news sources.

art wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The one distinction I would make, is that MSNBC and CNN, despite imparting their own slant to the news, do generally try to be factual. You may disagree with their interpretation or presentation of the facts, but the facts do generally tend to be right.

With Fox, you have bending or dismissal of the facts (misinformation), as well as outright invention of the facts (disinformation). Together with the slant they too impart, they weave a story that is more fiction than fact, but that they know will keep their viewers glued, as casinterest said.

Being in UK I do not have access to many US news stations. I would say, though, that in my experience

Fox makes it up as it goes along
CNN sticks more closely to facts (but selectively)

Given that both seem to interview people who are strong adherents of the stations' political persuasion and harsh critics of the opposite, I see them both as political propaganda platforms. Since I watch TV news because I want to hear the facts (and all the facts) of a matter, I find both fail badly as news sources.

But that's the point. Here in the States, we are force fed Fox's version of events, no matter how wildly unhinged they are. They say something and it is parroted on social media and AM talk radio and Fox uses that as their fact checking. CNN and "left wing" social media sites fact check them but, all we hear is "but we can't trust 'liberal' media" from everyone inside the echo chamber. Is it propaganda to fact check or tell the other half of a story?

seb146 wrote:

art wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The one distinction I would make, is that MSNBC and CNN, despite imparting their own slant to the news, do generally try to be factual. You may disagree with their interpretation or presentation of the facts, but the facts do generally tend to be right.

With Fox, you have bending or dismissal of the facts (misinformation), as well as outright invention of the facts (disinformation). Together with the slant they too impart, they weave a story that is more fiction than fact, but that they know will keep their viewers glued, as casinterest said.

Being in UK I do not have access to many US news stations. I would say, though, that in my experience

Fox makes it up as it goes along
CNN sticks more closely to facts (but selectively)

Given that both seem to interview people who are strong adherents of the stations' political persuasion and harsh critics of the opposite, I see them both as political propaganda platforms. Since I watch TV news because I want to hear the facts (and all the facts) of a matter, I find both fail badly as news sources.

But that's the point. Here in the States, we are force fed Fox's version of events, no matter how wildly unhinged they are. They say something and it is parroted on social media and AM talk radio and Fox uses that as their fact checking. CNN and "left wing" social media sites fact check them but, all we hear is "but we can't trust 'liberal' media" from everyone inside the echo chamber. Is it propaganda to fact check or tell the other half of a story?

It is always propoganda when it goes agaunst the story that they want to keep their donors donating their time and money too. Fact checks work for minds that think critically. For people that are brainwashed, they are easily dismissed..

art wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The one distinction I would make, is that MSNBC and CNN, despite imparting their own slant to the news, do generally try to be factual. You may disagree with their interpretation or presentation of the facts, but the facts do generally tend to be right.

With Fox, you have bending or dismissal of the facts (misinformation), as well as outright invention of the facts (disinformation). Together with the slant they too impart, they weave a story that is more fiction than fact, but that they know will keep their viewers glued, as casinterest said.

Being in UK I do not have access to many US news stations. I would say, though, that in my experience

Fox makes it up as it goes along
CNN sticks more closely to facts (but selectively)

Given that both seem to interview people who are strong adherents of the stations' political persuasion and harsh critics of the opposite, I see them both as political propaganda platforms. Since I watch TV news because I want to hear the facts (and all the facts) of a matter, I find both fail badly as news sources.

We have Sky News Australia becoming a propaganda/conspiracy theory vehicle with its "after dark" people. Their latest thing is being terrified of nuclear armageddon and blaming Joe Biden for it (never mind Putin).

Avatar2go wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

CNN is the same, how much did they pay for sandman’s lawsuit?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1Z70CL

That was also a settlement, to avoid trial. On every case where Sandman has gone to trial, he has lost. He likely would have lost the CNN case as well.

Also there is no equivalence between a single incident of mistaken & inaccurate reporting, and the continuous barrage of disinformation from Fox about the stolen election, which still goes on today. The only concession made by Fox, is that they no longer claim that voting machines were compromised, but only because they were sued to stop the false claims.

And it is suspected by many that Sandman only got enough to cover his legal bills, not the millions he was claiming in the lawsuit. It is likely CNN settled because the proposed settlement was going to less than legal fees had it gone to trial, and CNN won the case, which was likely.

Courts generally prefer that civil litigants settle, rather than litigate matters, and might penalize litigants who refuse a reasonable settlement offer. The famous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit is a great example of this; McDonald's refused a reasonable settlement offer, and when it reached the court, the court penalized McDonald's for refusing a reasonable settlement offer.

This thread has devolved into a serious of personal comments and arguments, and will be locked.

✈️ atcsundevil