The reason I ask, is because several news stories recently have had facts that have later been proven false. The one that is most alarming is the Jena Six storyline, I have heard from real sources, complete and totally opposite stories. I am not interested in arguing about which ones are true, what I am interested in is do you think its ok for the media to give false information yet remain immune under the guise of free speech? In this situation, the newspaper that lied caused one of two things, either they inflamed racial hostility with a misleading story that makes whites look racist, or, the other newspaper slandered 6 kids. Personally I think the media has gone too far. Liars should be put out of business. Problem is I dont know which is true, and neither does anybody else, except maybe the people that live there, and they might not even know at this point.
2007-09-23 17:31:41 · 5 answers · asked by scorch_22 6 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
In very few cases they are held accountable, Dan Rather for instance. I agree with you though. I've caught quite a few of them lying through their teeth..
2007-09-23 18:02:07 · answer #1 · answered by maginethat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libel is illegal, and it is not unheard of for media institutions to be brought to court.
However, in order for it to count as libel or otherwise defamatory in some way, there must be intent to harm or a substantial lack of other sources to verify the situation.
It is permissible for untrue statements to be issued at the spur of the moment, as can be seen in some court rulings, where a false answer or a rumor is run instead of the actual facts.
As to what we see in the mainstream media, mostly on television and the Internet, these stories are not necessarily false, and therefore are not lies or libel. They are simply one person's or one institutions interpretation of events.
Therefore, despite what many people believe, the media isn't actually lying. Their outlets are so visible that it's almost impossible to get away with more than a very minor error without eliciting some sort of response from various sources and people involved, which would make the media look worse. Reporters and editors strive to maintain integrity.
2007-09-23 18:07:25 · answer #2 · answered by Bellicosa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does not. However, I would want the level of proof set rather high before it could ever see a courtroom or every disagreement would be in court and the press would be effectively stymied. For instance, report that President Bush was unintentionally misled by intelligence sources - off to court. President Bush lied - off to court. It would be a lose/lose scenario for the US public.
2007-09-23 19:24:21 · answer #3 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree. The media pushes the side of a story that is most controversial in order to get attention. It should be illegal. If they cannot get their facts straight, don't broadcast the story. Did you see that CNN guy on YouTube on the Jena6? He belongs in the dumpster with the "reverends"!
2007-09-23 17:45:56 · answer #4 · answered by sweetmommy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't think they lie.
Just communicating as it is with different communication system.
Luke 9.55
2007-09-23 20:51:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋