Re: Fake News for Big Brother
Well, it might not be such a bad thing in the long run, particularly if they printed a retraction some days later. Already the masses believe what they read/hear from "trusted" media sources, even to the point of "knowing" that Saddam Hussein was somehoe behind 9/11/01. If this were well publicized, there could be the realiztion of "what!they LIED to us?!" In the case of the New York Times the lies are not out-and-out lies, but a deliberate slanting and re-arranging of information in such a way as to support the 'well-intentioned' initiatives of their perceived community. Or perhaps worse still, not investigating too closely when our military releases some 'hot' information...any soft questioning will be done weeks later and in a page deep in the interior... Who once raised the point that "in a world where everyone told the truth all the time, the consequences of a single lie could be catastrophic..."? -TD
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> CC: cypherpunks@minder.net Subject: Re: Fake News for Big Brother Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:37:54 -0400
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:04:10PM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
The news media, will, in fact, print fake news supplied by the government, with full knowlege that it is false, to further an ongoing investigation.
Yes, that may be the case. It certainly is here. But let's not forget the fact that this incident has drawn sharp criticism from other journalists.
-Declan
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Well, it might not be such a bad thing in the long run, particularly if they printed a retraction some days later. Already the masses believe what they read/hear from "trusted" media sources, even to the point of "knowing" that Saddam Hussein was somehoe behind 9/11/01. If this were well publicized, there could be the realiztion of "what!they LIED to us?!"
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, 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.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization.
Ok fine, but what about the old saw that you can't lie to any law enforcement types? Are we to assume that no Law Enforcement Officer ever watches Fox News? By extension, does that mean any member of the media may lie to a Law Enforcement Officer? If so, why does does Fox get to lie, and Joe Spudweiser can't? Ok, what if Joe Spudwiser has his own neighborhood newspaper? Can't have it both ways. Then again, in this "envrionment" nothing makes sense other than to assume that everyone is lying. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
participants (3)
-
David Howe
-
Sunder
-
Tyler Durden