Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
  1. #141
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    27,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    The lawsuit is asking for admission of wrongdoing. This will be major if it happens. News organizations make retractions all the time, at least, honest ones do, when they make a mistake or follow early evidence that leads astray from later ones. Those typically don't end in legal action, as @cubby will probably say and if not I'll be publicly shamed and rightly so. This lawsuit is trying to force FOX News to admit they were wrong -- which, based on over twenty thousand dead, they were. It shouldn't have required a lawsuit. It should have required ethics.

    If FOX News loses -- waaaaay too early to say -- and is forced to make an apology at figurative gunpoint, it's going to be a major blow against them. Especially since, based on how long lawsuits like this take, it could be months or even a year later, when the COVID-19 body count is at its maximum. Every news organization on Earth, and I'm not sure if OANN counts, will take turns reporting on this story and half-concealing smug looks of superiority, sometimes because of genuine glee (CNN) but also because they'll be about to inherit part of FOX's audience share. "We were wrong" is one thing, "We were wrong and killed thousands of our own viewers" is another.
    While entirely complicated, typically when news organizations make factual mistakes, they print a retraction, or offer the retraction in an appropriate media - which do not result in legal action. Because ethics are thing.

    On a larger scale, it's one good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
    No one is above the law!

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    While entirely complicated, typically when news organizations make factual mistakes, they print a retraction, or offer the retraction in an appropriate media - which do not result in legal action. Because ethics are thing.

    On a larger scale, it's one good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
    My guess is that the argument Fox News will use to avoid this is that the talk-show host aren't actually journalist and report the news. It's a opinion piece so they can say whatever they want.

  3. #143
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    27,363
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    My guess is that the argument Fox News will use to avoid this is that the talk-show host aren't actually journalist and report the news. It's a opinion piece so they can say whatever they want.
    That makes sense. They will more than likely present several arguments at once and seek Summary Judgment to kill the suit as fast as possible. If denied, they'll keep it tied up in appellate courts for months/years (just the SJ issue). High end corporate attorneys were designed to delay these kind of suits forever.

    This suit was dead in the water before it started. But the filing of it is very important.
    No one is above the law!

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That makes sense. They will more than likely present several arguments at once and seek Summary Judgment to kill the suit as fast as possible. If denied, they'll keep it tied up in appellate courts for months/years (just the SJ issue). High end corporate attorneys were designed to delay these kind of suits forever.

    This suit was dead in the water before it started. But the filing of it is very important.
    However at the same time though, you could argue that commentary of news is equal to the news.
    Instead of an 30 min segment on multiply events of the day you could argue that the talkshowhost have a 1 hour show that goes deeper in the events of the day making it news.

    So to put in in perspective. The news would report on how many are infected and what the response to that is, so a piece that may have been allocated 5 mins given the severity instead of 1 min.
    Talkshow host has 60 mins (or whatever) the time to dive into this topic, he/she has the time to talk about the policies, invite experts and ''educate'' his audience.

    In this scenario you could argue that these opinion-host are in fact news and that the audience experience the shows as news.

    Still though. It's pushing the definition because it's untested waters but having said that. We as a society need to broaden (read update) the definition to what is considered journalism/news because our current standard is definitely out of date. For example, you can not have FB that wants to be considered a ''news media'' in some regards not follow the same rules as news, which is why they allow so many fake/edited political adds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •