The latest legal battle over a name: Fox News vs. Al Franken (1 Viewer)

[Chris Lockwood]

> I wonder if Fox News is aware of where fairandbalanced.us, fairandbalanced.net, and fairandbalanced.org goes?

I just tried all 3, & none lead anywhere. Were you able to view those sites?

I don't get your point, anyway. I typed in alfranken.com hoping he had a site to promote his stuff, like a lot of people do, & assumed that would be the likely URL if he did. Did you try it yourself? It takes you somewhere which has nothing to do with Franken.

Who would try going to fairandbalanced.us or any of the others if they were really looking for Fox's site? Most people would probably try foxnews.com.

 

[Jay Heyl]

They really like to stoop low, even in non-editorial pieces.

An argument that cites specific examples is much stronger than one that consists of nothing but vague accusations.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

1) In the interest of full disclosure? So then why don't the quote the reasoning behind the lawsuit? They have one story (taken directly from AP and duplicated on other news sites) that gives both sides of the lawsuit. Either report they whole story or not at all. Unless of course they're not fair and balanced, which invalidates their lawsuit.

2) Sure there are a lot of former president's administration employees working as correspondents. But how many actively have publicly endorsed candidates during the course of their job? Many top Fox News executives (not just anchors) were high in previous conservative administrations. Remember, they have the final say over the network's operations. Indeed, many former employees complained about over-involvement in their stories until they were satisfied with the content (i.e. slant).

3) I've already given several examples throughout this thread of Fox News' (and its staff's) willingness to step outside of fair and balanced discourse. Having repeated them more than once, I'm loath to do it again when you can just go through the thread.

 

[Jay Heyl]

I've already given several examples throughout this thread of Fox News' (and its staff's) willingness to step outside of fair and balanced discourse.

If I had seen any verifiable facts in this regard I wouldn't have asked for more. The only thing I've seen that even approached the level of verifiable was one report in a New Jersey paper about the news ticker on the Fox News building in New York having some anti-anti-war protester slogans. That New Jersey paper was quoted in many other places, but there was no other independent verification of the story and I could find no follow-up with Fox's response. The lack of independent verification makes the whole story rather suspect.

The other item concerned a court case between a Fox affiliate and a reporter who used to work for the affiliate. There was no relation whatsoever between this case and Fox News, yet it was cited as "proof" that Fox News lied in their stories. This would be like saying NBC Evening News has been proven to lie because a reporter at a local NBC station in Cedar Rapids, Iowa was shown to have lied during the local news broadcast.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Everybody, please reel this in a bit. Let's focus on the lawsuit as my esteemed colleague requested. Seriously.

 

[Ike]

Let's not be coy; dish the dirt, name names. Let's have some details.

I don't want to drag this out, but to answer Jay's question, I'd point him to google the President of Fox News' name, Roger Ailes. There was a news story a while back where people thought he may have over stepped the journalistic bounds by sending a letter to President Bush about his image.

As for the lawsuit, I don't see them ever getting it through. Like I said earlier, I don't see how this can help Fox News at all.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Let's not be coy; dish the dirt, name names. Let's have some details.

Ike beat me to it. Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News!!

* Worked for Nixon
* Worked for Reagan
* Created the notorious "Willie Horton" ad

And worst of all, he "consulted" the President days after 9/11.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT...on.fox.debate/

THIS is the man running the "Fair & Balanced (TM)" network?

In any event, you need to look no further than Roger Ailes and his personal agenda to slant the news in a right wing bias. His action against Al Franken (and the demeaning tone of the network against ANYONE liberal or progressive) is obvious that the use the F&B term is laughable - as is this lawsuit.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Once again, let's keep this focused on the lawsuit and its present status. Let's please move away from talk about Fox's alleged biases as a news organization. Instead, what are the merits or otherwise of this suit, what are its chances of succeeding, and how is all this affecting the book's sales? (Yes, we know Mr. Franken's book has already received an additional, prerelease print run.)

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Jack - in all due respect, to understand the basis of the lawsuit, one needs to understand the motivations of the plaintiff. Its abundantly clear given the ideological stance of the plaintiff's CEO.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

And now, O'Reilly thinks that Franken isn't a satirist, and compares him to the Watergate burglars. My favorite quote:

"It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander."

 

[Michael Reuben]

Its abundantly clear given the ideological stance of the plaintiff's CEO.

Like I said -- not much to do beyond indicating where one stands.

I started this thread, and I'll the one to close it if it gets too political or just too strident.

AFAIK, the hearing is still scheduled for tomorrow. I'll be schocked of the court enjoins sales of the book, but stranger things have happened. Assuming the court doesn't issue an injunction, it will be interesting to see how vigorously Fox News continues to prosecute. Most trademark plaintiffs regard the preliminary injunction as the make-or-break part of the case, but I'm not so sure that will apply here.

M.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Michael: I was reading an article somewhere that said that the thing to watch will actually be the wording of the judge's decision (if there is one). It's already expected by most observers with knowledge of the law that the decision will go to Franken, but if the judge words it ambiguously enough--accidentally or not--that other companies might jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Jay Heyl]

I didn't intend to further respond to this thread but, at the risk of further raising the ire of the moderators, I also didn't want to just disappear without acknowledging the posts about Roger Ailes. I did the Google search as Ike suggested and found an obvious connection between Ailes and those R-word folks. So I concede the man at the helm of Fox News has a clear conservative bent. The Google search also revealed that Ailes was once president of CNBC and president of "America's Talking", the channel that became MSNBC. This information raises some further questions in my mind, but they will no doubt lead in a direction not desired in this forum, so I will leave them unasked. I now sign off this thread.

 

[Trey Fletcher]

So I concede the man at the helm of Fox News has a clear conservative bent.

So what? Everyone that complains about the conservative viewpoint of Fox News has the ability to change the freaking channel! Don't like that they bill themselves as "Fair and Balanced"? Tough. If Michael Moore can misleadingly call himself a documentary filmmaker, then Fox can use whatever tag line they want.

This lawsuit begs the question: Are the execs at Fox simply blind with anger or merely stupid? You do not make Al Franken and his book go away by filing a lawsuit of this type, or any for that matter. As we all know, any publicity is good publicity. What was once going to be read by a small, loyal fan base is now a bestseller and a "water cooler" topic in many circles. How embarrassingly immature and foolish.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Has anyone found the book yet? No one's got it. *sigh*

EDIT: They just got it in at Borders, thank you 20% off coupon (no discount the weenies) *zing!*

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

I have it pre-ordered at Amazon, but they still haven't sent it out. Maybe they're waiting on a verdict?

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm reopening this thread for the newest development. From Fox News:

A federal judge on Friday denied Fox News Channel's request for an injunction to block humorist Al Franken's new book, which uses the Fox slogan "fair and balanced."

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said Fox's claim was "without merit, both factually and legally."

PLEASE NOTE: Some posts prior to the thread lock have been deleted. Please confine discussion to the legal case. Debates about the "liberal media", the "conservative press", etc. will get this thread (and possibly other things) shut down permanently.

M.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Score! I'd really like to read the full decision, because it's the words, not the decision that will determine if other companies will do the same thing Fox News did. If it's ambiguous enough, we might see a lot of this in the future. I'd just like to point out that the byline is AP, Fox News just reprints it. Expect it to show up elsewhere verbatim.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Judge Chin must have ruled from the bench, because the hearing didn't start until mid-afternoon. At the moment, I'm sure there's nothing more than a transcript of the oral ruling. It's possible he may issue a written opinion at a later date. Let's see what the longer news reports say; the hearing was no doubt well-attended.

ADDED: A CNN report with additional quotations from the judge's comments:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fo...ken/index.html

M.

 

[Peter Kline]

Not too surprising an outcome.