The Media Industry

That's about what I expected to happen. Palin couldn't establish the actual malice requirement. By the way, even though I'm no fan of Palin, I think this requirement is horse crap for three reasons. First, there's no evidence that the founders intended the First Amendment to put public officials at a disadvantage when it comes to a defamation suit. The purpose of the freedoms of speech and press is to enable the spreading of truth, not falsity.

Second, even if we accept the actual malice requirement, it's far too restrictive. Reading this opinion is like reading a Texas Supreme Court opinion in which the court is going through contortions to make sure the plaintiff loses. Basically they just crap on every piece of evidence she has, and this opinion isn't unique. Most defamation opinions read like this. The effect is to narrow the cause of action through evidentiary burdens and restricting what a jury is allowed to infer. Well if you do that enough, you eventually reach the point that, absent an admission of guilt (which you'll virtually never see), it's impossible to win. We're getting to that point with defamation suits involving public figures.

And it's important to note who's making this kind of ruling. It's the judge. That means that not only is this requirement making the plaintiff lose, it's denying him or her a day in court altogether. I think we're at the point in which this judge-made requirement is becoming very difficult to reconcile with the plaintiff's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Third, I don't think this requirement has given us a better or freer political media. It has given us one in which the spread of disinformation is less difficult. Let's keep in mind that this requirement is relatively new (from the mid-'60s). Prior to that, the media had to give a crap if what it printed was true or not. Does anybody really think the media of Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and David Brinkley was inferior or less informative than the crap we have on TV or in the printed media today? It's almost too ridiculous of a question to even ask.

 

Our press certainly has more freedom than virtually any other country in the world. Defamation lawsuits are a casualty of that freedom. Alas, there seemed to be a better ethics in the media in prior generations but that may be a fallacy I hold. Like the medical profession that forces students to endure "ethics" classes, I wonder if journalism has the same requirement? Of course, any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta can now be a "journalist" simply by starting a blog and twitter account so that may not help.

 

I did, but that's been a long time. You'd like to think that UT has continued the same basic degree requirements, but at the same time, with new faculty, who knows whether their definition of "ethics" remains the same.

 

ugh

 

Sounds about like the unsolicited request I got from Match.com asking permission to submit my photo for use in promotional campaigns.

Agreeing would've all but signed my life away for free. Not to mention giving them carte blanche to use on ANY dating platform they're affiliated with.

"Sign up today and you can get lucky like this guy...on ManLove.com"

Uh yeah, no thanks.

 

YES! ^^

 

But from 1789 - 1965, defamation suits weren't a casualty of our freedom of the press and speech. We were able to reconcile the freedom of speech and press with the right of individuals to seek justice in our civil courts. I think we're worse off for deciding to remove the disincentive to print falsity.

It's harder to impose ethics requirements on professions that aren't licensed, and I wouldn't support licensing journalists. That I think truly would present a constitutional problem. You'd have to ask the government for permission to be a journalist. The potential for abuse would be massive.

You mention doctors, and it's true that they have to follow ethical guidelines. However, the big enforcer of their ethics (besides licensing and administrative discipline) is civil remedies. If a doctor abuses his position, his patient can throw the book at him.

 

Some would argue it's too easy to throw the book at doctors. I don't know if I'd agree or not, but it seems a pretty common argument.

 

In Texas

 

Pretty funny when you consider who owns the NYT

 

It depends on where you live. In Texas, the opposite is true.

 

Scaramucci has his next gig. He'll be the host of TMZ Live. How appropriate. Forget the typical political commentator/host route and don't follow the financial roots. Instead go right to a gossip show. It fits based on the firestorm we saw with his 2 week role as WH Director of Communications.

 

Halloween 2017

 

This is an actual headline

"Everyone Who Works at Equifax Should Be Put to Death Tomorrow at Sunrise"

http://www.sfweekly.com/news/everyo...x-should-be-put-to-death-tomorrow-at-sunrise/

 

This made me laugh
I am not fluent in French so I cant fairly judge the validity of this claim
But there is no way French media is more narcissistic than the US media, is there?

 

Amusing 8m meltdown by MSNBC host

Language warning!!!

 

Saw this on Facebook. Must be stressful coming up with new lies and ways to try to ruin Trump on a daily basis.

 

I "sprechen" quite a bit better than I "parler" (though I "parler" much better than I "hablo"), but if the French media is comparable to the British and German media, he's absolutely right. They're more smug and more Leftist than any mainstream media source in the US. Furthermore, though the media liked Macron better than Le Pen, he's still not their ideal political leader. On economic and fiscal issues, he's well to their Right, and other than at the very beginning, he has gotten along with Trump surprisingly well. He has gotten flack from the European media for both reasons.

 

There are lots of good ones of these out there
-- Lawrence O'Donnell bad language warning! --

 

Bill Murray did it better:

 

How did the US media ever get his bad?
Sad!

 

The NYT has been covering for Commies for a very long time

 

The NYT seems to have a theme lately
It's almost like they are colluding with the Russians

 

Here is Rachel Maddow defending Anthony Weiner's claim he was "hacked" -- her rhetorical technique is directly from Alinsky

 

Still don't understand the difference between news and opinion sections? Purposeful ignorance? Most of the major papers offer a point-counterpoint opinion sections. Omitting the counterpoint opinion is a little biased, don't you think?