I hope there are more of these types of cases. The \”press\” does have a duty to report actual facts, but over the last few years, I have read many articles, heard many talk radio reports and seen many TV news outlets indicates things like, \”sources say\”, \”many say\”, \”some say\”, etc. The perfect example is Fox news. The reporting on that station often makes reference to \”sources say\” right before they blast someone with questionable if not outright incorrect information.
I realize there is freedom of speech that is at the core of our country\’s belifs, but that shouldn\’t give mass media outlets like the Boston Herald free range to print stories that are not \’source checked\’ reliable and not hearsay; and to do so BEFORE printing them (as retractions are never given the same amount or publicity).
It seems to me that JSC should have recused themselves. I see a severe conflict of interest–even Jugde Murphy points it out. Further, it is amazing that he won 2m despite that the story had been confirmed (albiet after publication).
Actually the freedom that is at the core of our country does give us the right to say or print pretty much anything based in truth. Which, if you read the article the judge did say something close to what was reported. The Boston Herald and the reporter did what any reasonable reporter could do. There is no way the Judge should recieve 2m! That court was out to protect its own.
I will agree that some news organization fire unfounded accusations. But that is the way the cookie crumbles and most major outlets do allow for retractions and other opportunities to make ammends. That is a high price to pay, but freedom is worth it.
they deserve to be ***** slapped, I\’m in favor of removing all their exemptions, they\’re nothing but a tool of big business and our clown government.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I hope there are more of these types of cases. The \”press\” does have a duty to report actual facts, but over the last few years, I have read many articles, heard many talk radio reports and seen many TV news outlets indicates things like, \”sources say\”, \”many say\”, \”some say\”, etc. The perfect example is Fox news. The reporting on that station often makes reference to \”sources say\” right before they blast someone with questionable if not outright incorrect information.
I realize there is freedom of speech that is at the core of our country\’s belifs, but that shouldn\’t give mass media outlets like the Boston Herald free range to print stories that are not \’source checked\’ reliable and not hearsay; and to do so BEFORE printing them (as retractions are never given the same amount or publicity).
It seems to me that JSC should have recused themselves. I see a severe conflict of interest–even Jugde Murphy points it out. Further, it is amazing that he won 2m despite that the story had been confirmed (albiet after publication).
T HAVE A FEELING THAT THE RULING WAS BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IS ONE OF THEM
Actually the freedom that is at the core of our country does give us the right to say or print pretty much anything based in truth. Which, if you read the article the judge did say something close to what was reported. The Boston Herald and the reporter did what any reasonable reporter could do. There is no way the Judge should recieve 2m! That court was out to protect its own.
I will agree that some news organization fire unfounded accusations. But that is the way the cookie crumbles and most major outlets do allow for retractions and other opportunities to make ammends. That is a high price to pay, but freedom is worth it.
American press is a pathetic joke,
they deserve to be ***** slapped, I\’m in favor of removing all their exemptions, they\’re nothing but a tool of big business and our clown government.
Exhibit A US has 83.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities did you ever hear that story? http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2007/fs070416.cfm that\’s up 33.9 trillion in less than 2 years from 50 trillion in 2006