Fake News for Big Brother

[Trei, Peter]

> ----------
> From: 	David Howe[SMTP:DaveHowe at gmx.co.uk]
> Sent: 	Monday, April 28, 2003 11:42 AM
> To: 	Email List: Cypherpunks
> Subject: 	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?!"
> 
> 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.
> 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there *were* a
law against
news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is
truth?', and
'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently,
Zimbabwe) to
persecute reporters on the grounds that they were 'libeling the government'.

'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways.

Peter Trei