PDA

View Full Version : I threatened ABC that they were LIABLE...




Highland
03-06-2008, 10:26 PM
I threatened ABC that they were liable because people don't donate to RP if they think he has quit...they backed up and 2.5 minutes the story was changed! I wonder if that is the secret recipe for all these assholes who act like he isn't running. They are liars and should be held accountable.


WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT...PLEASE POST!;)

btw I ALSO TOLD A CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL THIS INFO...THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT TOO...ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE???

BoBoDuFlachi
03-06-2008, 10:27 PM
bump. cant hurt to try

Highland
03-06-2008, 10:27 PM
Thanks

Banana
03-06-2008, 11:01 PM
I also emailed PCC asking that they do something about it.

I also suggested in another thread that we have a ChipIn for a lawsuit.

Look at this as a publicity, and if we get this to court, we can then argue that media blackout screwed the election and make everyone go "hmmm...." This shouldn't be a missed opportunity.

gb13
03-07-2008, 01:02 AM
Use it. Can't hurt to try.

jmdrake
03-07-2008, 09:00 AM
Hmmm....I never thought about that. Right before Super Tuesday the Tennessean ran a "candidate comparison sheet" that showed everyone BUT Dr. Paul. When we asked them about it they apologized and said they were just running "syndicated information". (In other words this crap was in other papers). Also the Nashville Scene ran a cartoon that same time showing all of the candidates that had "dropped out" including Dr. Paul. Maybe this could be a class action suit?

Dark_Horse_Rider
03-07-2008, 09:02 AM
They are really LIE UHH, BULL

acptulsa
03-07-2008, 09:06 AM
I know we need to pursue action along these lines with NPR. If PUBLIC broadcasting can't be counted on to give it to us straight, then it needs to change it's name, it's charter, and give up whatever tax dollars it may still receive.

Dark_Horse_Rider
03-07-2008, 09:17 AM
I know we need to pursue action along these lines with NPR. If PUBLIC broadcasting can't be counted on to give it to us straight, then it needs to change it's name, it's charter, and give up whatever tax dollars it may still receive.

NPR what does it stand for ? No Public Representation ? National Propaganda Radio ?
Negotiate-And Pay-Me-For Reporting-What-You-Want-Me-To-Say

LittleLightShining
03-07-2008, 09:24 AM
This just gave me an idea. I know Vermont Public Radio is having a fund-drive right now. I just called them and told them that had they not, along with their NPR news content, ignored Ron Paul in their primary coverage I would have been thrilled to donate. Unfortunately, now I don't see where the quality of their news content is any better than Fox or CBS, so I can't contribute.

If other public radio stations are having fund-drives, call them up. And if you have donated in the past be sure to let them know that you will do so no longer.

Dark_Horse_Rider
03-07-2008, 09:29 AM
Good for you... they were a huge disappointment with their blackout and it makes you wonder who calls their shots.

Highland
03-07-2008, 09:30 AM
Those are things that should be addressed as liable...thanks for the comments.

dalesvp
03-07-2008, 09:44 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/. I sent them the following email.

Dear WorldNetDaily,

For the second and last time I am leaving WND and this time it is permanent. The reason? Because you eggheads repeat the lies from the MSM. This time it is the ABC lie Ron Paul is winding down his campaign. If you were a real news agency you would do some investigating before making yourselves look like fools and mindless shills for the NWO. Here is the article and video any 5th grader could've found. It was released yesterday. It is looking more and more like it is people like you guys and gals who help perpetuate the NWO frauds on the American people.

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/#RonPaulsMessagetoSupporters

cc: Many influential correspondents.

Mahkato
03-07-2008, 09:46 AM
Can you imagine what would have happened if the Louisiana GOP hadn't cheated RP out of his win there, a few days before Super Tuesday?

Banana
03-07-2008, 10:03 AM
The fact that other outlets parroted the stories only give more ammo to the argument that they have indeed unduly influenced the election.

We should get a action organized...

Magneto
03-07-2008, 08:26 PM
NPR is just full of goons. They ignored Paul with tremendous effort at every chance and the only stories they did on him were the sham racist letters thing, a grand highlight of his opposing Congressional candidate, Peden, and this this morning Steve Inskeep nearly announced with glee his innuendo that the campaign was ending.

How I long for my simpler, ignorant days, prior to Ron Paul freeing my mind and before the mainstream media turning me into a cynical bastard.

A lawsuit against the top media outlets. Mmm. Sounds good. So, how does that happen?

Highland
03-07-2008, 08:56 PM
no clue...we need to recruit lawyers for Ron Paul!

Cleaner44
03-07-2008, 09:16 PM
I threatened ABC that they were liable because people don't donate to RP if they think he has quit...they backed up and 2.5 minutes the story was changed! I wonder if that is the secret recipe for all these assholes who act like he isn't running. They are liars and should be held accountable.


WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT...PLEASE POST!;)

btw I ALSO TOLD A CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL THIS INFO...THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT TOO...ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE???

I am really glad you did that. We need to hold people accountable and you discovered a great way. The donation angle would show actual harm.

Julian Sanchez
03-07-2008, 11:02 PM
So, uh, I hate to spoil the fun, but... under precisely which statute are you planning to hold the news organizations "liable"? Ignoring a candidate who you think deserves attention is not against the law. Getting the story wrong is not against the law. I'm guessing maybe people are thinking a libel suit? But because of that pesky First Amendment, winning such a suit against a media organization for coverage of a public figure is incredibly difficult. Any lawyer will tell you that an action of this sort wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

RSLudlum
03-07-2008, 11:39 PM
How I long for my simpler, ignorant days, prior to Ron Paul freeing my mind and before the mainstream media turning me into a cynical bastard.


Same here, but I try to look at the bright-side. Now I have more comedy channels to watch. ;)

HollyforRP
03-07-2008, 11:46 PM
Maybe the media just doesn't want our money anymore? Maybe they want us to get rid of cable and stop watching them all together. They just don't like us anymore.

dalesvp
03-08-2008, 06:58 AM
The media is in the mind-control business. These 'people' know how human psychology works and they work it quite masterfully. Using the tools of psychology they can manipulate the audience to think and believe just about anything - even what we used to know as insanity. One of the ways they do this is to re-write the governing "Rule Set". In simple terms the Rule Set is the rules of whatever game or project is underway. He who calls the Rule Set is in control. For instance when in a poker game the dealer gets to call the game. The dealer sets the tune so to speak that everyone playing dances to. Each game has a Rule Set. Five Card Stud has a different Rule Set from Seven Card Stud. All players are expected to know the Rule Set for each game called. Life is a set of Rule Sets. We are taught in school (especially group sports) to OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION the rules of the Rule Set of whatever game is being played. And it is usually someone in authority who calls the game.

So the media gets to call the game and change the Rule Set as per their directives to rule and control the audience. Bush et al the Neocons used 911 to rewrite the Rule Sets and they continue doing so. The Ron Paul movement is an empty movement until and unless we get to call our own game with its new Rule Set. The movement has been attempting to resurrect the old game of Constitutional Patriotism which has largely been forgotten and is opposed by those who wish to call their own game of Rule Set of world-domination.

You can see them doing it in this astonishing video linked here:

http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=3216#3216

Banana
03-08-2008, 04:20 PM
So, uh, I hate to spoil the fun, but... under precisely which statute are you planning to hold the news organizations "liable"? Ignoring a candidate who you think deserves attention is not against the law. Getting the story wrong is not against the law. I'm guessing maybe people are thinking a libel suit? But because of that pesky First Amendment, winning such a suit against a media organization for coverage of a public figure is incredibly difficult. Any lawyer will tell you that an action of this sort wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

IANAL, but I understand there's two possible angles:

1) libel- I know that precedents are against us, but it bears bringing the case before the court to test whether it is really OK to be so casual with reporting when there is so much at stake. We can argue that he never said "drop out", and ABC tried to to put that word in his mouth, and thus is a libel.

2) Someone said earlier there is a law against manipulating the election... if that's the case, then that'd be far more easier than a libel suit.

Either way, bringing the suit would be very good, and if we can get a court to hear it, it is a significant victory in that we get to legitimate the "blackout" which several outsiders think is entirely our perception and hopefully make other people think twice about what news they're getting from.

Julian Sanchez
03-08-2008, 10:10 PM
Look, I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm familiar enough with media law to know that the only people who benefit from a libel suit on the theory you're advancing are the attorney unethical enough to take your money and the judge who gets to have a nice, long laugh before showing you the door. Misreporting Paul's statement as a claim that he's dropping out doesn't fit any legal definition of libel, even assuming you could directly show harm. But let's pretend it did. Next you'd need to prove that the news organizations acted with "actual malice": That they knew their claim was false and used the specific language they did with the intention of harming Paul. Problem one is that it's commonplace to use language like "dropping out" when candidates are, strictly speaking "suspending their campaign" as Mitt Romney did. It wouldn't even be clear, in that context, that the claim was "false" (since it's consistent with a common use of the term), never mind that they knew it was false and that they made it maliciously. (Maybe you think this is "obvious," but that doesn't mean you can prove it in a court of law. Everyone knew Al Capone was a gangster, but they convicted him on tax evasion.)

In any event, since Paul is the purported injured party here, he's the one who'd have standing to bring a suit. And if he has anyone remotely competent advising him, he's not going to be interested in embarrassing himself this way.

As for electoral manipulation, this just isn't covered by those laws -- they're about stuff like vote fraud.

PaulTriumph
03-08-2008, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=Julian Sanchez;1337940]

In any event, since Paul is the purported injured party here, he's the one who'd have standing to bring a suit. And if he has anyone remotely competent advising him, he's not going to be interested in embarrassing himself this way.
QUOTE]

Julian, this seems pretty reasonable- it boils down to whether RP would launch such a suit, and I don't see that coming from him at this time. If anyone with legal expertise has something to add, though, I'd be interested to learn more.

The larger problem is that the MSM covers elections like a 'horse race', only reporting on their idea of who's up, who's down. (Really only a step away from TMZ-like celebrity coverage...) They don't have interest or experience in delving into real policy discussions. Therefore, they hear the words "winding down" (especially coming from RP's communications staff), and automatically make the jump to "dropping out". They take their cues from what Romney, Huck, etc. have done, and think RP is doing the same.

To them, there's no difference. But WE know that RP is not a conventional candidate running a conventional campaign, expecting conventional results- the man said so himself! ;)

Banana
03-09-2008, 12:48 AM
PaulTriumph, you hit it on the nail.

I really wish they would actually do news, you know, reporting nothing but bare facts and leaving it up to people to connect the dots for themselves and wonder if we need stronger libel laws (i.e. British libel laws).


Julian,

You are correct about standing- I had forgotten that one tiny but important point so I guess this is entirely academic at this point, and Ron Paul is more likely to have some lawyer advising him so he'd know more than you and I.

That said, it is really sad to see them run amok with statements and throwing around conjectures so casually. You can almost see the stark contrast between for example, a report on murderer facing a trial and a report on campaign trail; numbers of word "alleged" and synonyms, quoting people and detailing facts and whether they are in dispute.