Does Fox have the right to lie about the lying? Is "Fair and Balanced" truth-in-advertising?

[steveorg]

CREDO Action is pushing a Defox campaign to encourage reputable politicians to not appear on Fox so as not to add credibility. They also ran a fun Bracket of Evil game to parallel the NCAA tournament where Fox was the winner. They are noble efforts but not enough, so I sent this letter to encourage stronger action:

Fox's reputation must be undermined among their core viewers and independents. Even a small shift can have a large impact. We would have held onto the Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts if less than 3% had voted the other way. I suspect that without Fox's unholy influence, that would have been the case.

We need to take Fox to court to expose their lies and partisanship for what it is. A court of law is a controlled venue where the facts can be exposed in detail. Unfortunately, Fox has every right to lie and be as partisan as they want. However, do they have the right to lie about the lying?

Do they have the right to use the advertising tag line "Fair and Balanced"? Does that run afoul of any truth-in-advertising laws? I have absolutely no legal background, so I do not have an opinion. I wouldn't want a federal department such as the FCC, or for that matter any government agency to pursue them. That's too much like government censorship.

However, are there any jurisdictions where consumers have standing to sue? If so, that would be the perfect route. If there's no appropriate jurisdiction, perhaps a left leaning city council could be persuaded to pass a truth-in-advertising law that could provide a venue.

Press coverage would be immense and the trial would drag on for months as every lie and the details about the lack of balance are exposed. Perhaps "No Spin Zone" can be taken down during the same process.

Very importantly, it gives Democratic candidates better cover against the Fox lies used by their opponents. A simple characterization of the lie as a Fox lie would have new meaning and validity, maybe prompting quick removal of Fox lies from the Repuglicans game plan.

I think it's worth devoting a little money to some legal research to see if this or some similar strategy is possible. Even if any applicable law requires a long-shot interpretation that gets thrown out, just getting the concept covered by major media could have an impact.

Please email CREDO Action to support the idea at [e-mail]. Any other thoughts on how to achive the goal are also welcome.

[quiet.american]

1. K&R. I've been wondering about this same concept myself.

Bookmarked.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Fair and Balanced is a trademark. It isn't truth in advertising...n/t

[Syrinx]

3. .

Fox, defended in court, and won the right to lie. I'm not sure if the court ruled one way or another on lying about lying. :)

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

[steveorg]

8. CeaseSPIN.org

That's a distressing story, not because Fox prevailed based on the First Amendment, but because of the limited media attention it received.

The story mentions CeaseSPIN.org, which is trying to approach the problem by creating an MPAA type of rating system for accuracy.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I do think that when the lie and know they lie

and it can be proved the FCC has the right to take action. They should be fined each time. And if they are fined enough they could have their license pulled. If they want to be a republican infomercial station or a station that reports on cele-bs and that type of thing OK. but if the lie about news they should not be able to be called a news company.

[demosincebirth]

5. They lie about everything and get away with it. nt

[madrchsod]

6. fox won a case over their lying ...yup- it`s legal to lie

[paulsby]

7. it's beyond silly

"fair and balanced" is purely a matter of opinion

it thus can't be false advertising

frankly, i think fox KNOWs that "fair and balanced" pisses fair minded people off, so they do it. it's like an inside joke

it's really that simple

it;s also ridiculous.

you attack bad speech with good speech. suing for "false advertising" is not the way you do it

not that you COULD, but the very idea is just wrong

[steveorg]

9. "fair and balanced" is not alway just a matter of opinion

Fox lies have been documented so often that if put to a jury, the jury most likely would find that the lies amount to a lack of fairness. It can also be shown that the lies are so overwhelmingly pro right wing, Repuglican, Bush, etc and anti Progressive, Democratic, Obama, etc., that they lack balance. Before the Presidential election Fox promised that they would cover McCain and Obama equally. The stats proved that was far from true and I suspect that there are other statistics that would also demonstrate a lack of balance.

Why is the idea to sue for false advertising "just wrong"? Why should the media be the only industry allowed to engage in false advertising? That doesn't restrict the First Amendment. Fox would still be able to lie, they'd just have to change their slogan.

[paulsby]

10. what next?

sue new york times for false advertising?

"all the news that's fit to print"

oh noes. do they print ALL the news that's fit to print? must be false advertising!!!

seriously

get REAL

it smacks of sour grapes. you don't like fox's success, so you try this ridiculous maneuver.

fair and balanced is their trademark.

what is "fair" and what is "balanced" is purely a matter of opinion and it's vague enough to be ridiculous to try to nail down.

again, this is the kind of stuff that makes us look like petulant whiners.

remember when oreilly sued franken?

here's a hint. we are better than that. or should be

[steveorg]

11. Irrelevant comparisons and unfounded speculation

Irrelevant comparisons and unfounded speculation about motives doesn't validate your statement that "what is 'fair' and what is 'balanced' is purely a matter of opinion" in the face of the mountain of provable Fox lies.

I don't understand your point that fair and balanced is a trademark. It doesn't take a lawyer to know that trademarks can be considered to be an aspect of advertising. Just do a little research into the limitations on using the word 'organic' to misrepresent a product and the types of prohibited brand names for alcohol and cigarettes to get that point.

[paulsby]

12. it is just as much a matter of OPINION

as is the new york times "all the news that's fit to print"

you could make a great argument that the NYT does
it's a ridiculous idea, and it is a classic example of a loser mentality. petulant whiner'ism.

you attack bad speech with good speech, not specious lawsuits

[steveorg]

13. Repeating irrelevancies

doesn't make them more relevant. What's fit to print is clearly a matter of judgment where reasonable people can disagree.

Lying about indisputable facts is not "just as much a matter of OPINION", unless perhaps you're channeling Dick Cheney and consider facts to be fungible.

[paulsby]

14. and people can disagree on what is "fair and balanced"

the NYT hardly has a sterling record for truth, fwiw.