If most (not all) news outlets are fake news and spread nothing but lies how come they are not sued out of business?
Asked by
SQUEEKY2 (
23123
)
February 14th, 2023
How come we don’t hear about them being sued all the time for spreading fake news?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
21 Answers
Slander is a tough and costly thing to prove. Also if someone was to sue, chances are long before the process would get anywhere even close to court, they would simple post some retraction and claim some bogus error or correction. This happens so often that how could you keep up with this never ending string of fake news going out over the airwaves constantly. We can’t even keep up with George Santos or whatever his name is.
Did not Alex Jones get a $1,000,000,000 or 0.9 billion dollars settlement against his company? For saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax?
^^ That was for a “blatant lie”...NOT “fake news” but excellent example.
“Fake News” was used by old 45 to inflame his base when anyone said something different from what he was lying about!!!
How come we don’t hear about them being sued all the time for spreading fake news?
Because the vast majority of them are reputable and don’t broadcast ‘fake news’. Like @LadyMarissa said, that’s something trump made up when things didn’t go his way.
Freedom of the press is included in the constitution.
^^ Ah someone who’s familiar with that little piece of paper that seems to get overlooked so often these days. kudos :)
It is VERY hard to prove libel. Near impossible. And that’s a good thing. And if you can’t prove libel against a media source, they have first amendment protections.
Look, EVERY media source has bias. Some try harder than others to scrub it out. My solution has always been to ALWAYS peruse at LEAST two news sources, one on either side of the center-line in bias. And both sources have to have a good reputation for factual reporting.
Note that ‘factual reporting’ is not the same as ‘unbiased’. You can see bias in how certain news sources choose not to cover certain stories, or the use of loaded language and click-baity titles that don’t match the content of the article.
By perusing at least one fact-based source on either side, you are less likely to have stories (or aspects of stories) that you aren’t aware of. Then, when the sources clash, if you’re motivated, you can look into the discrepancy in more detail. Or don’t—- but at least you knew there was a dispute. if you only use one source or only sources on ONE SIDE of the center line, you’ll just not be exposed to stories that are bad for the side you cover.
Quite a few of the leftist outlets got sued by Nicholas Sandmann. CNN, Washington Post, and NBC/MSNBC all settled out of court for his defamation lawsuits. But that doesn’t really put them out of business. And those that are drunk on the kool-aid don’t even take notice.
Think back…Fox was the “most perfect” news outlet UNTIL they turned their back on old 45. Now, they are included in the “fake news” category!!!
ELECTRIC Kool Aid. (The LSD makes it electric!)
I think they do get sued but they don’t say it.
^^ HA! It would be in the news!
Then how do you explain my link that he lost three cases?
@SQUEEKY2 it was Sandmann that claimed he reached a settlement ! !
Liar liar pants on fire !
@Tropical_Willie Don’t be a fool. Look at the citations I gave. CNN says they reached a settlement. Stop trying so hard to make it about Trump. The liars were the MSM Media.
@SQUEEKY2 the judge threw the case out on fairly sketchy reasons. And Sandmann will appeal his decision. The sketchy reason is that he is claiming that Nathan Phillips, the Native-American elder that got into Sandmann’s face, was only presenting opinion when he said Sandmann and the others got into his face and blocked his way so it wasn’t verifiable. The problem with that decision is that there is a much longer version of the video that tells an entirely different story…a story that proves Phillips was lying.
Another problem with dismissal based on unverifiable opinion is that the lawsuits were against the MSM outlets. That dismissal basically is saying that it is okay for them to get one opinion and treat it as fact. They smeared these kids without ever once interviewing them. So if I got interviewed by these press outlets (and they were looking to smear you) I could tell them any story I want about you, make you out to have said or done things you never did, and they could just report it, defaming you like crazy. What happened is verifiable. There is video evidence that the press purposely ignored.
But interesting question, you just asked me to explain your link and I did. So how do you explain the 3 I posted?
Answer this question 
