Faux News

[la_belle_laide]

I very much apologize for double-posting today.I hope I'm not being an LJ pest to my f-list. But this doesn't belong with my last post, and I still wanted to post it because it's important and I know a few of you on my F-list are interested in knowing things like this. Probably most of you, actually.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.


What the HELL? It's "only a policy?" Oh, well I guess that makes it all right then. I want to spit in Bill O'Reilly's eye (actually I would love to do much more than that, involving a fishbat,) but hey, that's just my "policy."

Comments

[lehorin.livejournal.com]

As someone just finished with a course on information and media law my soul cringes in horror at this news.

[la-belle-laide.livejournal.com]

That must give it a whole different angle to you.

I'm honestly not surprised. In America, we've been so overrun with right-wing pundits and they seem to have so much power. What's more, many people don't actually want the truth. This is how a sttion like Fox News gets away with all of this.

[lehorin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it kind of does. I know that British laws are pretty old fashioned and tilted heavily towards those with money but there are offices like the Information Commissioner and Ofcom to stop reporters saying "Guess what, stupid people! We're going to feed you lies and you are going to be our bitches and eat it up! Because it's the LAW!"

It's a little different for the newspapers, but that's why I don't read them.

Wow, hello ranting! Guess I was little more worked up about this than I thought.