Some of the people answering this question are confusing libel with rumor and propaganda. Libel is the intentional defamation of a person's character, but is more applicable to persons who do not make their living by being in the public eye. Celebrities have a more difficult time proving libel than a non-celebrity.
Your question is about whether the media should be held legally responsible for reporting rumor that turns out to be untrue, or lies and innuendo that twist the facts to support their interest, or undermine an opposite view. There is no law requiring the media to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do think the media should be held legally accountable. Pundits, too, should be held accountable if they claim they are delivering unbiased news. Otherwise, they should announce at the beginning of their report, and repeat the announcement several times that they are giving an opinion/editorial. That would allow their free-speech, but inform the viewer/listener/reader that the content is not necessarily factual.Should there be liability laws against US news organizations for false reporting %26amp;/or outright lies?
FAUX is an ';entertainment news service';
yes how would you fight so many news Organisations cases, because their sales and existence are based on lies it's like king Midas trying to stop the the tides from coming in a fruitless tasks
there is ..
if you can prove malice then you can get a settlement
but since most of the trail lawyers and judges are lefties..
good luck in finding one to take ur case
They are called libel laws.*
No comments:
Post a Comment