Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: 2004 article--OREILLY Muses about F*k'g news staff, young, eager, 'there to serve ME'

  1. #21
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,989
    Thanks
    14771

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Again: read my comments more carefully before you respond. I said Murdoch's kids were politically correct pussies.

    I know this was a business decision - that was my whole point. It had nothing to do with O'Reilly actually being guilty or convicted of the crime (or civil offense) he was being accused of. And that's the problem.

    We need new laws in place that protect public figures from these kind of allegations meant to destroy their reputations and livelihoods without having to first prove it in court. No one should ever be fired over allegations.

    In America - we are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. Remember that?
    That's the standard for criminal offenses.

  2. #22
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,989
    Thanks
    14771

    From
    Kansas
    Otherwise, O'Reilly has every right to sue his accusers either for violating settlement gag orders in cases where he was a party, or for defamation. The former will be fairly straightforward --- the question will be, did an accuser talk to the media when she had promised not to?

    If he sues for defamation, truth will be a defense (even partially proven truth) that makes any positive outcome for him impossible. That truth can be offered by the defendant right away or obtained via subpoena. My guess is, O'Reilly is eyeing a move either to the Trump administration or another media outlet and doesn't want to go through such subpoenas.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3636

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    That's the standard for criminal offenses.

    The standard should be that the media can't be allowed to destroy someone's livelihood and reputation with mere allegations - without ever having to step in a court of law and prove a damn thing.

    We need new laws in place that protect public figures from this kind of behavior. It's gotten way out of hand and I'm sick of it. I'm tired of smear merchants and rivals seeking only to destroy each other with innuendo hiding behind freedom of the press.

    Freedom needs accountability and justice to be worthwhile - otherwise it's just anarchy.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 20th April 2017 at 11:34 AM.

  4. #24
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,989
    Thanks
    14771

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    The standard should be that the media can't be allowed to destroy someone's livelihood and reputation with mere allegations - without ever having to step in a court of law and prove a damn thing.

    We need new laws in place that protect public figures from this kind of behavior. It's gotten way out of hand and I'm sick of it. I'm tired of smear merchants and rivals seeking only to destroy each other with innuendo hiding behind freedom of the press.

    Freedom needs accountability and justice to be worthwhile - otherwise it's just anarchy.
    First Amendment protections for reporters who merely quote allegations are pretty strong when it comes to covering a celebrity. Actual malice is the standard: The allegation must either be provably false (up to the accused to do that) to such an extent that it is CLEAR that the journalists knew or should have known they were false, and didn't care either out of malice or sheer recklessness.

    This was settled in New York Times v. Sullivan, a decades-old precedent by now. That doesn't get overturned, except via constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3636

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    First Amendment protections for reporters who merely quote allegations are pretty strong when it comes to covering a celebrity. Actual malice is the standard: The allegation must either be provably false (up to the accused to do that) to such an extent that it is CLEAR that the journalists knew or should have known they were false, and didn't care either out of malice or sheer recklessness.

    This was settled in New York Times v. Sullivan, a decades-old precedent by now. That doesn't get overturned, except via constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
    That's why I said we need new laws in place.

    And I think our media has become so ridiculous and bias that critical mass has been reached. So I don't share in your belief that it would be so impossible to change the law to hold the media to the same standards as the rest of us. I imagine a majority of America is fed up with it.

    If you report something that isn't true that damages the reputation of that person - then they should be able to sue you. That would go a long way to making our media more responsible instead of what are obvious smear merchants with an agenda hiding behind freedom of the press to smear their rivals.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 20th April 2017 at 11:45 AM.

  6. #26
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,989
    Thanks
    14771

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    That's why I said we need new laws in place.
    No, you'd need a constitutional amendment.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    13,141
    Thanks
    8639

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    The standard should be that the media can't be allowed to destroy someone's livelihood and reputation with mere allegations - without ever having to step in a court of law and prove a damn thing.

    We need new laws in place that protect public figures from this kind of behavior. It's gotten way out of hand and I'm sick of it. I'm tired of smear merchants and rivals seeking only to destroy each other with innuendo hiding behind freedom of the press.

    Freedom needs accountability and justice to be worthwhile - otherwise it's just anarchy.
    That reminds me where are the law suits against the women that came forward during the Election like Trump threatened? I think the only law suit filed was from one woman against Trump, not the other way around. Hmmm…..

  8. #28
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,989
    Thanks
    14771

    From
    Kansas
    And I think our media has become so ridiculous and bias that critical mass has been reached. So I don't share in your belief that it would be so impossible to change the law to hold the media to the same standards as the rest of us. I imagine a majority of America is fed up with it.
    If I succeed in becoming a celebrity via talent in the media, political or performing arts, I have to deal with it. The benefits I reap in return for my sacrifice are tremendous, and all benefits come with a cost. That's a longstanding, practically irreversible American tradition. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3636

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    No, you'd need a constitutional amendment.
    No, you would just need a new law - a revised interpretation on the limits of the free press.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3636

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    That reminds me where are the law suits against the women that came forward during the Election like Trump threatened? I think the only law suit filed was from one woman against Trump, not the other way around. Hmmm…..
    If these women have a case then let them take it to the court and prove it. Otherwise - they have no business feeding their allegations to the press so they can use freedom of the press to paint their enemies guilty without ever having to step inside a court room.

    The guilt of someone should be determined in a court of law. Not on cable news.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30th October 2014, 12:02 PM
  2. This is a pretty horrendous news article
    By Dr Sampson Simpson in forum Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 28th May 2013, 12:03 PM
  3. A GOP defector muses on the state of the party
    By zitiboy in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1st May 2012, 06:35 PM
  4. A News question for David Young
    By Inkslinger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15th August 2006, 09:15 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed