Faux News Were Taken To Court For Lying But They Won So Does Fox Need To Distort The Truth To

Are Fox News hosts defending President Trump to maintain their lead in ratings ranking in cable news networks?

Fox News went into court in Florida and basically stated it was not illegal to lie or distort the news.In the pleadings, it described itself as entertainment and an entertainment channel numerous times despite the fact that Fox has a news division aka Fox News and an entertainment division aka Fox.At the end of the day Fox and MSNBC are very much like newspapers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries- —- they wore their editorial bias in the front page.Of course, newspapers backed up their bias with good reporting and being known for having their facts right. Fox fails this a lot…because it interferes with its ratings.Demographically, Fox is losing viewers. Whatever ratings they have right now is likely due to the fact that old people who fall asleep in front of the tv is about as reliable measure of viewership as lying to viewers to tell them what they want to hear.

Did "fake news" officially become a "thing" after Trump took office?

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.Lawyers that were paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.It's their right under the 1st Amendment.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.December 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, http://Florida.to investigat bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation.Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story.Akre and Wilson refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.August 18, 2000, a unanimous Florida jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” The jury awarded her $425,000 in damages.FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals overturned the settlement awarded to Akre.In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.During their appeal, 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 Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

Did Fox News go to court and get permission to lie?

They don’t need permission from the courts; they have it from the Constitution. Under the first amendment, what Fox News does is protected speech. (Ditto for MSNBC, or any of the networks, be they cable or satellite or terrestrial.) In fairness to Fox News, it should be noted that what you might think is a lie, someone else might think is the truth. The point is that whether you like them or whether you hate them, they have the right to express themselves, without government interference.Until 1987, there was an FCC ruling called the “Fairness Doctrine,” which said radio and TV were obligated to give both sides of the issues. But since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, radio and TV are free to present as much or as little opinion as they want, and they can also slant their news coverage in one direction or another. However, many networks choose not to do this, and you will rarely see the traditional networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS) intentionally lie; over the years, the traditional networks have usually tried to be fair to the facts. But intentional bias is much more prevalent on cable news channels, especially those with a built-in political point of view. And as frustrating as it might be to watch something (or someone) you believe is dishonest, not agreeing with a commentator or a channel or a network is not sufficient cause for them to be censored. Our system of laws does not work like that.

Why doesn't Trump sue for libel and/slander if the news is fake?

Broadly, for public figures (such as the President) it’s not enough to prove falsity to make a defamation claim; you have to prove malice aforethought, i.e. that they knew the statement was a lie. Any honest mistake or honest disagreement moots the case, regardless of whether it’s ultimately false. So, public figures almost never sue for defamation in the US, because this standard is incredibly high.More specifically, Donald Trump (the person) has employed this technique long before he became Donald Trump the President.This article examines seven speech-related cases brought by Trump and his companies, which include four dismissals on the merits, two voluntary withdrawals, and one lone victory in an arbitration won by default. Media defense lawyers would do well to remind Trump of his sorry record in speech-related cases filed in public courts when responding to bullying libel cease-and-desist letters.Donald J. Trump Is A Libel Bully But Also A Libel LoserIn other words, he’s very rarely sued anyone for defamation, and the lesson he must have learned is that he’s literally lost all but once, and even that was only in arbitration.Moreover, he knowingly threatens to sue even when he knows they’re telling the truth (such as threatening Rosie O’Donnell for saying he’d declared bankruptcy, even though it was indisputable that he’d done it five times). Why Donald Trump has spent a decade hating on Rosie O’DonnellNotably, though, Trump is rather delusional about many facts, as demonstrated for example by his suit against Timothy O’Brien for allegedly misstating his net worth. Trump lost that case. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/a..., Of course, it took five years.For Donald Trump, threats of libel or slander are just another tool in his “fake news” kit.

Is anyone held accountable when Fox News is revealed to be deliberately lying to viewers?

I find this question hilarious considering that NBC & MSNBC put out BLATANT lies and no one is wondering who is held accountable there.  Al Sharpton is a known liar and MSNBC host, whose lies are easily proven.  Chris Matthews has a bad relationship with truth as does Ed Schultz.  All three of these people are extremely nasty to anyone who doesn't hold the same views (Socialist Progressive) as they do.  Martin Bashir finally got fired for his nasty comments.I've never seen anyone on Fox deliberately lie and it is the only channel that has Republicans AND Democrats on every panel.

Why does the US news media have the right to lie in the news without any legal consequences proportional to the damage they make on the US democracy?

This is actually a really interesting question with a fascinating answer! The US has some very lax slander and libel laws, and the reasons for it are fascinating.The requirements for something to be considered damaging speech in the US are as follows-The speech must be untrue. If the comments made are accurate, then they can’t be slanderous.The statements must clearly be intended to cause damage. This protects people like satirists and comedians, and publications like The Onion. Yes, their jokes might be at someone’s expense, but it’s hard to prove that a joke is intended to seriously damage somebody’s reputation.The speaker or publisher must have either been grossly negligent or have known their statements to be false when they are published. A good example of this came up recently- a BBC reporter accused Trump of being disrespectful for not listening to the translation of the Italian Prime Minister’s speech, because he had no earpiece. This wasn’t actually true- the earpiece was just really, really subtle. The statements were retracted, and that was that. It wasn’t libel, because he had reason to believe what he was saying was true.The US legal system has deliberately made it very hard to prove defamation. Why? That’s an answer deeply rooted in American philosophy and history, but the short answer is that there’s a reason freedom of speech and the press are in the first amendment. They were considered important.Now, with all that said, I feel your question is based on some false premises. First, the news rarely deliberately outright lies. That’s really, really bad for business. Do they twist facts sometimes? Sure. Do things get skewed based on political alignment? Sure. But those alone are not enough to call it lying. Lying is deliberately presenting information you know to be untrue with the intent to deceive. And I really have yet to see any evidence that this supposedly endemic problem is damaging US democracy.In short- libel is really hard to prove in US courts. And your question is founded on a suspicious premise.