In the United States, is it legal to falsify the news?

I am generally familiar with the court case involving two Fox News
reporters who were fired for refusing to falsify or distort their
investigative report on the public health risks of bovine growth
hormone rBGH. My question is inspired directly by the issues in that
ongoing battle, but is intentionally more broad in scope.

A valuable answer might include:
- Quoted specific U.S. law affecting news corporations
- updated info or unique insight into the Fox case
- other examples of this issue (in or outside the U.S.)
- any simple element I may be overlooking

I understand that the FCC has licensing rules regarding use of the
public airwaves. But with only this one dirty case for reference, the
big picture is unclear. To me, this seems like a simple question: When
millions of Americans turn on a TV news program or pick up a
newspaper, is there any law ensuring that the news with which they are
presented is an honest depiction of what is actually taking place in
the world?

My leads and inspirations:
- the film "The Corporation" is an excellent look at the dangers of
the corporate business model, and uses the Fox News case as one
example.
- www.foxbghsuit.com
- recent controversies (columnist Armstrong Williams; Public
Broadcasting chairman Kenneth Tomlinson; various journalistic
integrity issues)
- the understanding that the corporation/advertiser/government
relationship has enormous influence over what is presented on tv,
radio, in print and on the web, particularly so in the United States.

Hopefully this explains my question and where I am coming from on the
matter. Though I realize this is probably a much more valuable
question, I'm hoping someone with equal interest will help for what I
can afford. Thanks very much for any assistance.

---

Request for Question Clarification by richard-ga on 06 Jul 2005 05:24 PDT

You will be more likely to attract a Researcher to your question if
you price it appropriately.  Here is a link to guidelines about
pricing your question:
https://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html

I don't think it's illegal to falsify the news. If it were, wouldn't
Dan Rather have faced criminal charges rather than being allowed to
step down gracefully?

An example from outside the USA:
In Canada there was a criminal code offense in s181, of "spreading false news".

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec181.html

It was extremely rarely used, but some years after the Canadian
Charter of Rights came into being the offense was struck down in 1992
by the Canadian Supreme Court as an unconstitutional infringement of
freedom of expression.

I would imagine that the First Amendment protects any form of
experssion in the United States, including "falsifying news".

Unfortunately, the answer is "no", also to your other question: a
media consumer cannot be sure that the information persented is
accurate. Media always has its agenda, depending on commercial,
political and other aspects.

Good question. Someone else can provide the citations. (Sorry, kinda
busy today.) But what it comes down to is this: There are no laws
that, in and of themselves, make it illegal to falsify news. There
are, however, a number of protections that tend to limit "false" news.
First, there are libel and slander laws. (Libel dealing with print,
slander with speech.) These, however, normally can be invoked only
after the false information is disseminated. Further, there normally
must be intent on the part of the person doing the slandering or
libeling. Either the person must have known beforehand that the
information was incorrect or he/she/it must have demonstrated reckless
disregard for the truth. And the burden of proof is on the person who
alleges libel or slander. That's a difficult burden...to prove not
only that information was false, but that the person who did it knew
beforehand that it was false. Having said that, though, it can be
argued that libel and slander laws do, to some extent, restrain the
news media from broadcasting/disseminating highly questionable and
possibly injurious information.

On very rare occasions, temporary restraining orders have been used to
prevent the dissemination of information that is either incorrect or
(more often) possibly correct but that would pose a threat to national
security. But that doesn't punish the guilty party for spreading false
news.

Also, you refer to "an honest depiction of what is actually taking place in
the world." The problem is that often the issue isn't black-or-white.
For example, is accurate reporting of one side of an issue--but
ignoring the other side--enough to trigger the concept of "false
news"? One might argue, for example, that Fox is guilty of "false
news" by not fairly covering both sides of an issue. Others might
argue that Fox is accurately covering the issues as it sees it.

There's also the matter of the First Amendment. No, it's not absolute
(no crying "fire" in a crowded theater), but it does extend well
beyond the limits of your question.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that, in the United States, there is no law
ensuring that the news being presented is an honest depiction of what
is actually taking place in the world.

This problem is not specific to the United States.

It may be more apparent in the US, since 'First amendment principle' is
stronger in  US then elsewhere, but any law , anywhere, which would try to:
 
" ensure that the news being presented is an honest depiction of what
is actually taking place in the world .."

would require that court (judge and perhaps jury) to decide what is 
" actually taking place in the world .." .

 Whenever tried, such attempt was or did lead to  censorship.
 
It may be necessary in some cases (e.g. case of slander) to make more narrow
and specific determination - on one specific assertion and possible dmage. 

That is easier than trying to assure 'fair reporting' but still hard.

(So, I would not say 'unfortunately' , as our politicalguru-ga did in the comment).

In some cases US does err on the side of placing too strong limits on
free speach, e.g. when companies 'state overly optimistic'
exepctations of future profits, sometime in good faith.

Companies are sued and sometimes inoncent people ends up in jail.

(read about 'Leraching' in
http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/enron/en1.html
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/020909fa_fact1
http://securities.stanford.edu/1025/MSO02-01/
etc
)

These are complex issues, and proper place for their discussions are 
forums, rather then GA -  [particularly when you are looking for a
free opinions,rather then paid research on facts].

possible groups:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/about?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/about?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/about?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mn.politics/about?hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/about?hl=en

etc
etc


Hedgie