That’s a step in the right direction, to be sure. But there were sympathetic victims in that case. So again, the standard appears to be that you can lie about unsympathetic people all you want. Just don’t go after someone the public actually likes.
While I agree with the principle that people should be held accountable for their lies, I’d be concerned that attempting to legislate against lies and deception would just result in a wave of excessive legal activity (lawsuits or prosecutions), given how toxic the legal system and public discourse has become.
I suppose that could be mitigated with some kind of safe harbor provision (e.g. if you can document a reasonable justification for a statement, and make corrections when you discover statements are wrong)…but I’d be skeptical.
Yes, that is already a standard.
NBC had no reasonable basis for the doctored George Zimmerman tape… they are the ones who doctored it. Fox News had no reasonable basis for the doctored photographs… they are the ones who doctored them. Fox News had no reasonable basis for the Karen McDougal lies… Tucker Carlson is the one who manufactured them.
CBS did not doctor the George W Bush documents, but they did repeatedly lie about authenticating them, which they did not do. At a minimum they have culpability for claiming they were presenting authenticated documents when they were not.
Reasonable mistakes are one thing, and I skipped over numerous examples where the outlets issued immediate retractions and admitted they got duped. There was a Sarah Palin case where they issued a retraction very quickly, she sued anyway, and lost on the basis that the media outlet acted reasonably. That’s one thing. In the examples I gave they did not, and I don’t think those defenses apply.
Understood.
My comment was intended to be more along the lines of: I am leery of making the laws tougher due to the potential of sending rabid trial attorneys into an excessive feeding frenzy, or in enabling additional weaponization of our court system.
I’m OK with the principle of not being “allowed” to outright lie, and for there being consequences for intentional or negligent deception. I’m not OK with the potential for enabling abusive litigation/prosecution as a tool to gag rivals and opponents.
Yeah, unfortunately outright lying seems ok at present, as long as you pick an unlikeable person to lie about.
While I am familiar with each of these cases, I am not familiar with the specific details of the defamation suits. Of the cases above as you describe them, the Zimmerman and McDougal cases appear on the surface to meet the definition of defamation under current law: publishing/broadcasting information that you knew to be false that damaged a third party. I don’t know why they weren’t found guilty, but imagine there must be some other complexity beyond what you voiced. I’m not sure there’s a need for a law change here, but I am interested in why these cases didn’t punish the offenders.
The Fox doctored photographs demonstrate complete lack of journalistic integrity, but I don’t know that anyone had standing to bring a defamation suit in either editing Trump out of a photo or editing a person carrying a rifle in another. They present fake news on an almost nightly basis, so these seem to be part of their usual schtick. When they knowingly broadcast a falsehood about someone that directly harms them, sue their butts off.
The CBS one smells, but it’s not clear they published information they knew to be false at the time. They are certainly guilty of a lack of journalistic integrity for not doing proper authentication.
That is way too weak a standard. If they are constantly telling known lies then they should lose first amendment protections as they are not actually press. No access to “press only” areas, no seat in the White House Press Corps, no right to keep sources confidential, etc.
If you find it, let me know.
1 Like
They knew that their claim of authenticating the documents was false.
The organizers of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone probably felt differently at the time. But they are, once again, not a sympathetic group.
Their dumb project was always destined to fail, but it arguably failed faster due to the doctored photograph.
So … you can lie about people who are weak and dumb. That’s ludicrous.
I, as a member of the media-consuming public, was harmed in each of those instances, and so were you and so were my parents and your parents and the whole entire country.
The fact that an individual has to document specific financial harm is a ridiculous standard. They should be fined heavily for telling known lies while purporting to be press with no further qualifications. If there’s no provision in current law to fine the heck out of them then there’s where the law needs to be fixed.
Absolutely not. Current law requires the published falsehood to directly harm for you to bring a suit. Lawyers are very happy to represent weak and dumb folks on contingency. I don’t think Zimmerman was particularly wealthy, and he certainly isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.
And he lost. I rest my case. You can slander people who are weak and dumb with impunity, as demonstrated by NBC and George Zimmerman.
Yes, and this is what needs to change. The FCC should be able to fine the likes of NBC and CBS merely for lying. And jail sentences imposed in particularly egregious cases.
They don’t have jurisdiction over all mediums, but IMO any outfit purporting to be press should be subject to regulatory oversight.
Can you imagine the end result of the government deciding what’s true and what’s false for everything the media reports? How do you believe the Trump administration would have chosen to use this executive power?
Having the FCC sign off on the veracity all reporting sounds like an egregious infringement of the freedom of the press, and one that would be heavily abused.
1 Like
I think one only needs to look at Russia as regards reporting on the current war…er, “special military operation” to see what could be down the slippery slope.
Nah, one case doesn’t define everything. Poor people win big legal judgements all the time. With defamation it is more challenging for poor folks, as lawyers on contingency have to get enticed that the pot will be big enough for their time. The Zimmerman pot was big enough, but the evidence was not compelling enough to convict.
There would be due process, of course. And yes, the evidence that they knew they were lying should be clear and overwhelming.
Look, you seem happy with media outlets on both the right and left lying to you with impunity. I am not. I would like to see meaningful changes so that the press is accountable to not tell super-fantastically egregious lies.
Apparently we are not going to come to agreement on this topic, so I’m happy to move on.
That is a travesty.
I’m fine with moving on, but this is a gross mischaracterization of my beliefs and everything I’ve said here. I am very disappointed at the proliferation of fake news, and choose to alter my consumption of news sources. I am completely against government control of what the media may report.
It is? I am not trying to mischaracterize anything and I’m sorry if you feel that I have. Do you have a suggestion that you are ok with that would actually curb the rampant lying?