Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tut,

You said, "If they happen to be too lazy or too inept to do the job properly then it is up to an indpendent agency, government or otherwise to point out how they falling below the standard."

I stand by my previous objection.

Steve

---

"Government or otherwise", can be interpreted as statutory authority. Quasi-governmental if you like.

Your previous objection was?

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

"Government or otherwise", can be interpreted as statutory authority. Quasi-governmental if you like.

---

I thought the government was the "statutory authority". Tut, I'm a big fan of standards, but I approach any limitations on free speech and a free press with the utmost caution.

Quote:

---

Your previous objection was?

---

It's just a phrase, the objection I made previous to that post. I object to government or "statutory authority" over the news such as the "fairness doctrine" the left wishes to impose on us once again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I thought the government was the "statutory authority". Tut, I'm a big fan of standards, but I approach any limitations on free speech and a free press with the utmost caution.



It's just a phrase, the objection I made previous to that post. I object to government or "statutory authority" over the news such as the "fairness doctrine" the left wishes to impose on us once again.

---

Hi Steve,

It did a little research.

In our country statutory authority can be independent or dependent on government. Apparently this is based on the type of authority and on the particular legislation of the state and territory from which the authority operates.

What is also interesting from the Australian point of view is that our journalists are vulnerable to defamation. I would imagine this is because we don't have a right to free speech in our Constitution so journalists can be sued under common law.

On this basis I would imagine journalists would have to 'tread carefully' at times on certain issues. I would also imagine that standards would help with this 'treading process'.Journalism in Australia probably embraces standards out of practical necessity.

Tut

Hello Tut,

We do have laws regarding defamation, slander and libel. Journalists should tread carefully at times but if the story is true, that is their defense. Truth is the standard.

Speaking of feminists in clown suits...

Quote:

---

Sandra Fluke: Politicians should be required to pass pro-woman litmus test to get elected

Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke said on Tuesday that candidates running for office should have to pass a pro-woman litmus test in order to get elected.

Fluke, an advocate for the Obama administration’s plan to force health insurers to cover birth control, was on Capitol Hill for a forum on “Opportunities and Challenges for a New Generation of Women,” in celebration of Women’s History Month.

“There should be a litmus test that they be pro-women so our votes have to include that requirement at least,” Fluke said. “And it should be a litmus test that applies to male candidates as well.”

She also spoke about the possibility of running for office in the future:

“Numerous American women have actually written to me in the last few weeks saying that I should run for office, and maybe someday I will.”

---

She actually said it doesn't mean it should be a "political litmus test", as there are Democrat, Republican and male candidates that pass the test. Huh?

Apparently I should not only pay for her birth control I shouldn't have the right to vote for anyone that doesn't pass her muster. If this idiot is representative of what passes for law students these days then we're in deep, deep doo doo.

Glad she's making good use of the expensive Georgetown Law school education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Hello Tut,

We do have laws regarding defamation, slander and libel. Journalists should tread carefully at times but if the story is true, that is their defense. Truth is the standard.

---

Not with news organizations in the US. One even went to court to assert its right to distort the news:
11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored

NK, distortion isn't the same thing as defamation, slander and libel. If you're worried about distorting the news you should investigate MSNBC

I believe I mentioned it applies to all news organizations in the US. But only one had to go to court to invoke and protect that right to distort.

So the theory is we can believe none of it unless it originates from a foreign source, so much for free speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not with news organizations in the US. One even went to court to assert its right to distort the news:
11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored

---

Hi NK.

Fox is just stating what everyone in the business probably knows. Fox like every other media outlet has the right to lie and distort the news if they please.

If you are protected by the First Amendment and there is no law against it, why not? Better still, why exploit it to the max?

It would be a waste of time repeating my previous rhetorical question.

Tut

You guys need to see this post again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

so the theory is we can belive none of it unless it originates from a foriegn source, so much for free speech

---

That would be a correct assessment.

Do you guys rehearse your smugness?

Oh, and tor grins I thought I'd remind you this thread isn't about the media, unless you're talking about the way they're letting these feminists get away with their blatant hypocrisy and liberal misogynist men hide behind women's skirts.

Sandra Fluke, bless her heart, apparently just realized what the rest of us already knew... "the Target store 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus sells a month's supply of birth control pills for just $9."

That comes to $108 a year, or almost 28 years worth of birth control for her $3000. Guess she'd never heard of generics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

...and liberal misogynist men hide behind women's skirts.

---

I'm hiding under skirt now... she's cute. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you guys rehearse your smugness?

Oh, and tor grins I thought I'd remind you this thread isn't about the media, unless you're talking about the way they're letting these feminists get away with their blatant hypocrisy and liberal misogynist men hide behind women's skirts.

---

Well, I gues they could say they are presenting their argument from a hypocritical point of view, or a misogynist point of view; whatever radical point of view you choose.

Exploit the potential this type of journalism has?

Tut

Journalism, you call this journalism?

Tut,

I agree that this op-ed is terrible journalism, and of course Jane Fonda is an actress, not a journalist. But it is an opinion piece and is identified as such. Is there something wrong with airing opinions? That is what we're doing here.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tut,

I agree that this op-ed is terrible journalism, and of course Jane Fonda is an actress, not a journalist. But it is an opinion piece and is identified as such. Is there something wrong with airing opinions? That is what we're doing here.

Steve

---

Hi Steve,

I am in agreement with your point. However, I would be interested in a suitable distinction between an opinion piece and advocacy journalism. More correctly, an extreme form of advocacy journalism.

Tut