Is belief a pre-requite to reporting???? Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusations directed at others by people involved? Politicians lie all the time about their...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusations directed at others by people involved? Politicians lie all the time about their opponents. If the reporting agency doesn't believe those accusations to be true, are they prohibited form interviewing the politician or individual making such a claim? Is it liable to interview these people??

In the Fox case everyone keeps saying it is an obvious lie that the d******n machines weren't doing what was claimed. Really? How do we know that? Does anyone here on OPP have the proof that the D******n machines weren't doing what they were accused of??

Seems to me that even hating Trump or "knowing" that the stories about the D******n machines are lies, or just believing they are lies, does not preclude interviewing the accusers. Something is just not right about this. I wish Fox had dared to take this all the way. I truly believe that D******n would have backed out in the end.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusa... (show quote)

I too wish they would’ve went to Trial .

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusa... (show quote)

Remember World Wide Wrestling?... they're all in on it.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Parky60 wrote:

Remember World Wide Wrestling?... they're all in on it.

I have always wondered what the attraction to the f**e drama of wrestling is. The outcome is predetermined, the opponents f**e it with each other in a sort of physical martial ballets of sorts, and one pretends to lose while the other pretends to win. Obviously they are fully capable of getting real, so to speak, and actually hurting each other badly, but they are very sk**lful in not k*****g each other for real, not breaking backs, paralyzing each other, splattering their bones across the matt, etc, etc. Ver sk**led but it is all acting.

woodguru

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusa... (show quote)

You are getting away from the reality here and getting off into the rhetorical defenses...

The d******n case is about having a substantial number of internal FOX documents that show by timeline that they knew there were no facts that supported e******n f***d. So there they are with documentation showing that they were going on air after discussions showed they knew full well that what they were saying was pure lies...

And here you are talking the language of defending lies...if you interview someone who you know is lying it is up to you to correct them so that you are intelligently representing the t***h and facts to your viewers.

woodguru

nwtk2007 wrote:

I have always wondered what the attraction to the ... (show quote)

What I have always wondered is how people can be so stupid as to get into and believe this kind of obviously silly charade

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

You are getting away from the reality here and get... (show quote)

I know about the emails and tests and they show that many at Fox did not believe the claims and one, Tucker Carlson, even h**ed Trump. That being said, how do we know the claims are not true? I have seen no proof that the D******n accusations aren't true. Have you? If you have the proof, lets see it.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusa... (show quote)

Just a point of law in America.. the accused do not have to prove they did not do what they are accused of. Rather the accuser, in this case Fox, has to prove the defendant did the evil deed they are being accused of..

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

The duty of a professional News Reporting organization is to report on wh**ever is making news, and to interview those who are creating the news. It is not the News organization's duty to judge the news, but to honestly report it, and allow their listeners to form their own opinion.

Whether or not the News organization believes those they report on is immaterial, or at least should be immaterial.

If they are professional, they are expected to be objective.

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is belief a pre-requisite to reporting news/accusa... (show quote)

American Vet

woodguru wrote:

You are getting away from the reality here and get... (show quote)

But all the OPP l*****t keep on lying after they have had the t***h shown to them.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

What I have always wondered is how people can be so stupid as to get into and believe this kind of obviously silly charade

Same. But they do. Weird.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

permafrost wrote:

Just a point of law in America.. the accused do not have to prove they did not do what they are accused of. Rather the accuser, in this case Fox, has to prove the defendant did the evil deed they are being accused of..

Oh, excuse me, but Fox is under no obligation what so ever to prove everyone they interview is being t***hful or not. Where did you ever hear that? In fact, in this case it is D******n who has to prove that Fox injured them.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Zemirah wrote:

The duty of a professional News Reporting organization is to report on wh**ever is making news, and to interview those who are creating the news. It is not the News organization's duty to judge the news, but to honestly report it, and allow their listeners to form their own opinion.

Whether or not the News organization believes those they report on is immaterial, or at least should be immaterial.

If they are professional, they are expected to be objective.

Exactly. I would not expect Fox journalists to do the CNN thing and argue with those they are interviewing. No matter what Fox people might have believed, interviewing accusers is not the same as saying the accuser is being t***hful or not.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

nwtk2007 wrote:

Oh, excuse me, but Fox is under no obligation what so ever to prove everyone they interview is being t***hful or not. Where did you ever hear that? In fact, in this case it is D******n who has to prove that Fox injured them.

The injury is beyond doubt.. the only way Fox could have avoided paying is if they could prove what they claimed the v****g machine mfg. was guilty of.. they could not come close.. so they had to pay.. now, in a settlement was cheaper then going thru with the trial..

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

permafrost wrote:

The injury is beyond doubt.. the only way Fox could have avoided paying is if they could prove what they claimed the v****g machine mfg. was guilty of.. they could not come close.. so they had to pay.. now, in a settlement was cheaper then going thru with the trial..

Again, I totally disagree. Had Fox sued D******n for defrauding the e******n yes, Fox would have to provide proof. But this was D******n saying that the reporting of these accusations injured them and that somehow Fox is culpable with the accusers by reporting the accusations. Also, D******n has to prove the injury no matter how false the accusations might be. D******n would have to prove more than just bruised egos and hurted feelings. Did they lose business? Prove it. Did they go out of business?

Journalists report lies all the time, just like the l*****t outlets reporting that Trump colluded with Russia for years now. And they weren't just reporting the accusation, they WERE the accusers. But I suspect that given the corrupt nature of our judiciary, had Trump sued CNN and MSNBC for slander, the judges would have thrown it out.