*FACE PALM* We're still talking about this?
Footnote#2: Project Censored Media,The Media Can Legally Lie, Retrieved March 15, 2007:
The link is located here:
11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored
This is a flat out horrible source. Why do you keep posting these non-sense sources? Stop.
Fox_TV
This is the info found at my Fox Broadcasting Company link under the heading "Criticism":
Fox Broadcasting Company - New World Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is not a cite-able source. If you do that on a college paper you get an F. It is user controlled content. I could change the entire page to say "Dreamer is wrong". Only users check those pages for veracity, and there is always fights over what is true and what isn't. Try this: use a respectable and objective source. Sometimes this is reporters, most of the time you have to go straight to the documents in question (remember the case I cited? Like that).
Wikipedia clones are also unacceptable. Further, I'm not going to rehash this timeline with you again. We've gone over it, and then went over it again. Oddly enough, who owned the station and when is irrelevant. Which leads me to my next point:
No matter what your cites say, there is absolutely no way for you to win on your original statement.
dreamer20 said:
Faux News: Unfair and Unbalanced:
"In a 2003 lawsuit Fox News admitted that they lie and distort the news:
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Florida Court of Appeals <circa> February 2003 ...FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akres claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
Now Fox complains that the White House refuses to treat them like a legitimate news outlet.
Obviously once you admit that you "
lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves" you can expect to be viewed as a disreputable "news station" by the White House.
So let us begin:
Fox news admitted that they lie and distort the news? No. You have never provided a single source that proves this true. Not one. The source your blog cites doesn't say that. In fact, the blog just makes a bunch of stuff up.
I linked you the appeals case. You can read it. Don't cite the motion for attorneys fees to me again, it's useless. I have no idea why you keep using it, but you do.
Florida Court of Appeals <circa> February 2003 ...FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media.
- We can all read the case and see that this isn't true. This isn't WVTV's position. I am starting to see that you don't understand what's going on here. Let me help: When you threaten to blow the whistle on an organization for violating the law and that organization fires you because of your threat, you can sue them for wrongful termination. Now, the law that you say the organization violated has to be a real law. You can't use a non-law as your threat. That's like threatening to rat on your company for not using the kind of copy paper you like; then complaining that they fired you over that. It simply isn't actionable. Ironically, WVTV's position directly acknowledges the news falsification policy; a written rule that forbids airing false news.
They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
- This appears no where in the case. It is literally made up. There is no response beyond that. It's a lie.
Fox attorneys did not dispute Akres claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
- WVTV fought this tooth and nail..in fact THEY APPEALED IT! At no point does WVTV acknowledge they made anything up, or that the news falsification policy allows them to do so. The facts of the case directly disagree with the assertion you wrote.
Obviously once you admit that you "lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves" you can expect to be viewed as a disreputable "news station" by the White House
- See how this is a lie? You claim that "Fox" is lying and is therefore not a legitimate news source, but you have absolutely nothing to base that on. You just made it up. Better yet, it has been proven to you that what you cite is false, and you continue to say that it isn't. Of course the irony here is that you are blatantly lying in your "proof" that Fox News is lying then calling Fox the liar.
Lets turn that critical eye on you for a second.
Why do you feel that it's ok to lie? Do you feel justified in attacking others integrity in a dishonest way? If so, how?
