oh my. i guess libel slander and defamation are legal. i wonder where my research team and millions of viewers are. hey. it's not like journalism is lacking any ethics or integrity these days. but then again a pedo like u wouldn't care about ethics, amirite? after all, no law can prohibit my free speech! libel, slander, and defamation be damned. those laws and court rulings are judges in err. -.-
gee whitikers. i wonder if there are preceding court cases that established an implementation of other laws that the judges used in justifying bring the case to trial. could you elaborate on that and help me understand why these judges would not see it as frivolously as you? or is libel, slander, and defamation legal according to that text?
how much of the thread did you read? Clearly a lot of people do care. It started with CodeArtisan saying "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events". I doesn't matter even though millions of people use his show to inform their political decisions and behavior? Sure thing, I guess but I disagree.
I talk with people about the news also. That doesn't make me a journalist by any means.
Do you have a team of researchers? Do you present that research to millions of people as facts? Do those millions of people use that research and facts to inform their politics and behavior? Then why the hell do you think "I talk about news" even remotely comes near to what is being discussed. You are a bad troll.
Because your legal opinion is something to fawn at. I wait with baited breathe for your legal expertise and analysis on the case as it has developed so far and why the judges were in err to let it go to trial.
Then what is the issue if not poorly written post-modern law? What is the objective basis that the law uses to account for the 1% that will be affected by the law? Again, a poorly written law with good intentions is still a bad law.
In that interview, Cruz didn't mention his religion. His religion may inform his policy but if he can justify law or policy without referencing that religion as justification I don't care his religion.
Whether you agree that the law should have a post-modern influence or not is very much different than raiding your home because you said wrong-speak. I would rather a Trump than a benevolent dictator.
We are both saying' if' which makes a lot this speculative and beside the original point being made. However, having a case or having grounds to stand on (other language I have used to describe this in other comments) doesn't necessarily mean he is right, the courts will side with him, or that he will win the case. It just means that on the face of it there is more substance to his argument that could have a legal basis. After all, someone saying an unfavorable opinion another person is more likely to defame someone than if you were stating facts.
TBH, I don't think Murray has a case. When I watch the episode in question from LWT it seems very thorough with the facts and research, as with other episodes of LWT (it's one side of the story obviously so there could be something more but I don't know with what I have seen). The original point I am trying to make is that LWT are journalists even if they do it in a comedic fashion.
There is an interesting case being argued for libel in the US about pink slime. It is rather interesting because there is legitimacy to both claims. On the one hand, ABC was well within their right to report on BPI for their product and used the term 'pink slime'. On the other hand, the USDA recognizes that pink slime is safe and there are no problems with consumption so the addition of those statements put consumers off needlessly for no reason for the public benefit that costed BPI money.
Neutral is a bad word to use but that was the word GP used. Bias is the proper word when talking about journalists but accuracy is the more important word for legalities in journalism.
but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with
No. I am saying that there is a requirement to report with accuracy that journalists are held to. All your examples of MSM try to report factually or at least do so in a way as to not slander or defame someone. They have their bias (which is what you are talking about for losing audience or recoup losses) and there isn't a legal requirement for that. Yes, I can say CNN and Fox are politically biased but that isn't illegal and they can have all the bias they want but I won't listen them.
there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
There are legal requirements for reporting on someone. The first amendment does not protect against libel, slander, and defamation.
I am not arguing what Murray's position is or whether what LWT is doing is protected speech or not. I am arguing the position from GGP: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show". It is journalism. It is news. Adding sarcasm and jokes does not make it any less journalistic. From their site they are doing the news, politics, and current events with a satirical lens. Satire does not nullify the journalistic aspect and to claim that what he does is not journalism is disingenuous. Journalism and comedy show are not mutually exclusive.
That is why I ask about 60 minutes. They do basically the same thing save the humor/satire/jokes. If 60 minutes did have the humor, how would it be different to LWT? I have no problem with LWT doing journalism. In many regards they do a better job than other MSM journalists (which is more of a commentary on the poor state of affairs for MSM journalism than LWT).
If anything, I think this lawsuit makes it very clear what LWT is and isn't. If they are "only a comedy show" and it is only Oliver's opinion then Murray does have a case because the commentary is based on an opinion and not fact. If they are researching facts and telling the truth (regardless the satirical manner or not) then Murray doesn't have a case because the commentary is based on journalism reporting the facts. The manner in which LWT presents those facts do not degrade the validity of the facts nor does it change the reality those facts present regardless what Murray thinks of it.
To put it a different way, I can't call you a pedophile to defame you in a newspaper unless there is evidence (like an arrest record). Humor is irrelevant.
Because the show is entertainment. Without the jokes, no one would watch.
Sure. I don't disagree that it is entertaining and that they have more viewers primarily because of humor/jokes. However, if you took out the humor what would you have left? Or to ask it a different way, If you added humor to 60 minutes, how would that be different to LWT? Why is one journalism and one isn't?
Slashdot Mirror
lol, that's pretty good.
stare*... coffee is a helluva drug.
I mean, how else do you survive the average management bullshit speech?
I usually pick a spot and at stair at it... but it looks like I am listening.
yay, i got the approval of an idiot.
lol, wow you're dumb.
oh my. i guess libel slander and defamation are legal. i wonder where my research team and millions of viewers are. hey. it's not like journalism is lacking any ethics or integrity these days. but then again a pedo like u wouldn't care about ethics, amirite? after all, no law can prohibit my free speech! libel, slander, and defamation be damned. those laws and court rulings are judges in err. -.-
u haven't thought this through, have you?
gee whitikers. i wonder if there are preceding court cases that established an implementation of other laws that the judges used in justifying bring the case to trial. could you elaborate on that and help me understand why these judges would not see it as frivolously as you? or is libel, slander, and defamation legal according to that text?
that some grade A legal analysis. can I can a bibliography of references to back it up?
how much of the thread did you read? Clearly a lot of people do care. It started with CodeArtisan saying "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events". I doesn't matter even though millions of people use his show to inform their political decisions and behavior? Sure thing, I guess but I disagree.
I talk with people about the news also. That doesn't make me a journalist by any means.
Do you have a team of researchers? Do you present that research to millions of people as facts? Do those millions of people use that research and facts to inform their politics and behavior? Then why the hell do you think "I talk about news" even remotely comes near to what is being discussed. You are a bad troll.
Because your legal opinion is something to fawn at. I wait with baited breathe for your legal expertise and analysis on the case as it has developed so far and why the judges were in err to let it go to trial.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
What should the state use in defining gender if not the giblets at birth? I don't care so long as it isn't anything like "gender fluid".
so what? does he do what journalists do?
does his audience use it as an authoritative informed source of information on the topics discussed?
how is he not a journalist.
k?
Then what is the issue if not poorly written post-modern law? What is the objective basis that the law uses to account for the 1% that will be affected by the law? Again, a poorly written law with good intentions is still a bad law.
In that interview, Cruz didn't mention his religion. His religion may inform his policy but if he can justify law or policy without referencing that religion as justification I don't care his religion.
Is the US raiding homes because of speech? News to me, got a source?
The bathroom debate is more about a poorly written version of post-modern law, i.e. should the state recognize the gender you choose at any given time or should it use objective standards that represent 99% of the population. To quote Ted Cruz: "it isn't about the Caitlyn Jenners of the world. But if the law is such that any man if he feels like it can go into a womens restroom and you can't ask him to leave that opens the doors for predators.". Poorly written laws with good intentions are still bad laws. I don't like the idea that if you feel a certain way you can do anything you want. A pedophile feels attracted to children, does that mean I should be tolerant of that because of their feelings? No. I will not capitulate to feelings that disregard objectivity and the vulnerable.
Whether you agree that the law should have a post-modern influence or not is very much different than raiding your home because you said wrong-speak. I would rather a Trump than a benevolent dictator.
touché
Was it a win for science or a win for engineering?
I don't. Could you rephrase that in the form a question in English Prime? For science of course.
We are both saying' if' which makes a lot this speculative and beside the original point being made. However, having a case or having grounds to stand on (other language I have used to describe this in other comments) doesn't necessarily mean he is right, the courts will side with him, or that he will win the case. It just means that on the face of it there is more substance to his argument that could have a legal basis. After all, someone saying an unfavorable opinion another person is more likely to defame someone than if you were stating facts.
TBH, I don't think Murray has a case. When I watch the episode in question from LWT it seems very thorough with the facts and research, as with other episodes of LWT (it's one side of the story obviously so there could be something more but I don't know with what I have seen). The original point I am trying to make is that LWT are journalists even if they do it in a comedic fashion.
There is an interesting case being argued for libel in the US about pink slime. It is rather interesting because there is legitimacy to both claims. On the one hand, ABC was well within their right to report on BPI for their product and used the term 'pink slime'. On the other hand, the USDA recognizes that pink slime is safe and there are no problems with consumption so the addition of those statements put consumers off needlessly for no reason for the public benefit that costed BPI money.
Sure.
Neutral is a bad word to use but that was the word GP used. Bias is the proper word when talking about journalists but accuracy is the more important word for legalities in journalism.
but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with
No. I am saying that there is a requirement to report with accuracy that journalists are held to. All your examples of MSM try to report factually or at least do so in a way as to not slander or defame someone. They have their bias (which is what you are talking about for losing audience or recoup losses) and there isn't a legal requirement for that. Yes, I can say CNN and Fox are politically biased but that isn't illegal and they can have all the bias they want but I won't listen them.
there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
There are legal requirements for reporting on someone. The first amendment does not protect against libel, slander, and defamation.
I am not arguing what Murray's position is or whether what LWT is doing is protected speech or not. I am arguing the position from GGP: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show". It is journalism. It is news. Adding sarcasm and jokes does not make it any less journalistic. From their site they are doing the news, politics, and current events with a satirical lens. Satire does not nullify the journalistic aspect and to claim that what he does is not journalism is disingenuous. Journalism and comedy show are not mutually exclusive.
That is why I ask about 60 minutes. They do basically the same thing save the humor/satire/jokes. If 60 minutes did have the humor, how would it be different to LWT? I have no problem with LWT doing journalism. In many regards they do a better job than other MSM journalists (which is more of a commentary on the poor state of affairs for MSM journalism than LWT).
If anything, I think this lawsuit makes it very clear what LWT is and isn't. If they are "only a comedy show" and it is only Oliver's opinion then Murray does have a case because the commentary is based on an opinion and not fact. If they are researching facts and telling the truth (regardless the satirical manner or not) then Murray doesn't have a case because the commentary is based on journalism reporting the facts. The manner in which LWT presents those facts do not degrade the validity of the facts nor does it change the reality those facts present regardless what Murray thinks of it.
To put it a different way, I can't call you a pedophile to defame you in a newspaper unless there is evidence (like an arrest record). Humor is irrelevant.
Because the show is entertainment. Without the jokes, no one would watch.
Sure. I don't disagree that it is entertaining and that they have more viewers primarily because of humor/jokes. However, if you took out the humor what would you have left? Or to ask it a different way, If you added humor to 60 minutes, how would that be different to LWT? Why is one journalism and one isn't?
Using other news sources and published documents means he isn't a news outlet/journalist?
If 60 minutes does the same thing without the humor, would you call it journalism ?