U of Vic climate prof sues National Post

[andrewl]

Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post. The National Post is a Canadian national daily that is known for for its persistent lies about climate change and slander against scientists who try to communicate the facts.

University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at The National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet. In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, "I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused."


http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Climate-Scientist-Sues-National-Post-for-Libel-1151667.htm

It will be interesting to follow this one and see what sort of precedent it might set as well as the effect it could potentially have on Canadian journalism and science reporting as a whole. Not to mention the industry funding that might get revealed if a trial goes ahead. I hope that the Weaver side does not settle out of court.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Is freedom of the Press limited to what is truthful? From March 2010:

Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Is freedom of the Press limited to what is truthful? From March 2010:

Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

Andrew

As Pilate so aptly noted: "what is truth" (John 18:38). While Fox news sucks in every imaginable sense of the word (except ratings) I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of limiting free speech to what is truthful. Who decides what is truth?

[andrewl]

As Pilate so aptly noted: "what is truth" (John 18:38). While Fox news sucks in every imaginable sense of the word (except ratings) I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of limiting free speech to what is truthful. Who decides what is truth?

Well, in this case i think there is grounds for libel at least, but it worries me that news organizations might for some reason be protected against these sorts of lawsuits.

I also believe that there is a difference between "deciding what is true" and actively deceiving people on what is factual about the state of any particular science.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Well, in this case i think there is grounds for libel at least, but it worries me that news organizations might for some reason be protected against these sorts of lawsuits.

News media in the United States has a long and well established history of being partisan, exaggerating facts, and sometimes just downright lying. From pro and anti slavery news paper to yellow journalism and the Spanish American War ("you give me the pictures, I'll give you the war") to WWII news reals the media has been anything but fair and balanced and downright lied often enough to make it a semi-regular practice. Fox News is just continuing the tradition.

I also believe that there is a difference between "deciding what is true" and actively deceiving people on what is factual about the state of any particular science.

There might very well be, but who decides that? I am uncomfortable with any one institution deciding who is lying and who is promoting an honestly held belief. For better or for worse error has rights in America.

[Lily]

As Pilate so aptly noted: "what is truth" (John 18:38). While Fox news sucks in every imaginable sense of the word (except ratings) I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of limiting free speech to what is truthful. Who decides what is truth?

Agreed. Informed consumers of the press need to be informed for a reason. Some are, many aren't, but I don't want the government dictating the "truth" in the press because citizens are derelict in their duty to differentiate. Once the government sets a "truth" standard then no one has a choice.

[Michael]

I think there is a valid difference between suing for 'libel/slander' and having the courts regulate 'truth'. Media is protected from the latter, but not the former.

And it does appear that libel is the actual legal basis of this lawsuit.

Are you folks suggesting that the media ought to be immune to libel/slander laws?

[Michael]

Well, in this case i think there is grounds for libel at least, but it worries me that news organizations might for some reason be protected against these sorts of lawsuits.
No, the media has no legal protection against libel. They can be sued for that.

I also believe that there is a difference between "deciding what is true" and actively deceiving people on what is factual about the state of any particular science.

Andrew
There is no law, rule or requirement that the media tell the 'truth'. Fact is, the media's business model is usually based on selling profitable lies and it always has been. Nothing illegal about that.

There is nothing more pernicious in modern society than the idea that the media has any obligation to publish truth. That's just so far from being true that it is laughable.

[Non Sequitur]

Are you folks suggesting that the media ought to be immune to libel/slander laws?

no that's not quite what i'm saying

There is no law, rule or requirement that the media tell the 'truth'. Fact is, the media's business model is usually based on selling profitable lies and it always has been. Nothing illegal about that.

There is nothing more pernicious in modern society than the idea that the media has any obligation to publish truth. That's just so far from being true that it is laughable.

That's what i'm saying plus a little historical context that puts Fox news in the same vein as a whole host of other people in American history.

[Zarquon]

no that's not quite what i'm saying


That's what i'm saying plus a little historical context that puts Fox news in the same vein as a whole host of other people in American history.
Hearst and Pulitzer were yellow journalists themselves.
I desire that the media were objective, and that they cover more science and less celebrities. But don't see that happening in our unenlightened societies.

[Zarquon]

no that's not quite what i'm saying


That's what i'm saying plus a little historical context that puts Fox news in the same vein as a whole host of other people in American history.
Indeed, it never ceases to amaze me that Hearst and Pulitzer were yellow journalists themselves.
I desire that the media were objective, and that they gave more coverage to science and less to celebrities and 'sports'. But I don't see that happening in our unenlightened societies.

[Michael]

Indeed, it never ceases to amaze me that Hearst and Pulitzer were yellow journalists themselves.
The term "yellow journalism" was invented to describe Hearst's newspapers.

Pulitzer was perhaps inspired by Nobel (who manufactured dynamite) to endow a celebration of the opposite of what he stood for. :shrug: