fox (for entertainment only) news
Already : Hatachi Archives
fox (for entertainment only) news Friday March 28
we all knew that fox news was bunk, but this, well, in the words of old strong bad, "'dis one takes da cake." not that i watch much television, but this is my public decree that i will never watch fox again (except for the simpsons).
Comments
- nate on March 28, 2003 11:11 PM
for full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/app/app2_2_2003/2d01-529.pdf - jon on March 29, 2003 08:41 AM
the decision in question really was about whether or not akre's eligibility to be covered under florida's whistle-blower's statute rather then the legality of news distortion aka "intentionally inaccurate news reporting". the sticking point was with the fcc rule about news distortion that was not an "adopted rule" as far as florida was concerned. if this situation had occurred elsewhere - like michigan where their implementation of the statute is not only more liberal but has become even more broad in the past few years (29 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 295)- akre could have had a better chance of winning the appeal. however, the overall case is still dicey with regards to the story having never aired it was an in-house situation vs. dealing with the public directly. if akre's story had run in modified form there would have been a stronger base for her case. another interesting note is that the evil empire of gannett was involved with this... - mark on March 30, 2003 12:14 AM
the question isn't the legality of the whistle-blower statute. the question is why it is legal for a news network to broadcast what it knows is false... - jon on March 30, 2003 11:08 AM
in that particular case the question was about the whistle-blower deal... as far as the grander scheme of things it isn't against the law to broadcast false/distorted news as far as first amendment and state-level laws goes (as far as i know), but it is against fcc regulations which regulate tv & radio to do so. the problem comes in beyond the fcc at the state-level because the "rules" have to be adopted by the state and to my knowledge no state has adopted fcc rules/guidelines because they are enforced (or should be) at the fcc level which has control because they obviously issue the licenses to broadcasters. additionally the fcc has never published it as a regulation and this whole thing traces back to an fcc document from 1949. it's also not clear whether or not akre actually submitted the complaint to the fcc or just threatened to which could explain the lack of response from that side of things. all in all, it's kind of a weird mess of sorts. - DAD on March 31, 2003 08:53 PM
Mark, another bad case of the press ---today a war correspondant got fired because he aired a live broadcast from Baghdad with an opposition point of the war. NBC then canned him. SO that means NBC only wants to air supportive points of view of this insane war. Constitutional rights are gone and only political correctness counts. That is what a Bush Presidency does for this country. - on April 1, 2003 10:00 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/national/01ARNE.html George, Bush didn't fire him, his employer did. tsk tsk. Peggy - mike on April 1, 2003 04:48 PM
"the moment that some call eternal, that some call insane..." my dictionary says "sane" means "mentally sound, especially being able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions." it's difficult to anticipate and appraise the effect of this war, but it would be equally difficult to anticipate the effect of not having this war, so i think not going to war would be insane too.
