Remix.run Logo
StanislavPetrov 8 hours ago

>"You and I, if we say a lie we are held responsible for it, so people can trust us."

I don't know how it works in The Philippines, but in the USA the suggestion that media outlets are held responsible for the lies that they tell is one of the most absurd statements one could possibly make.

lfpeb8b45ez 8 hours ago | parent [-]

How about InfoWars?

StanislavPetrov 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was referring more to established Media that people consider credible like the NBC, CBS, The Guardian, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, etc. The fact that the only person in "media" who has been severely punished for their lies is a roundly despised figure (without any credibility among established media or the ruling class) is not a ringing endorsement for the system. While the lies of Jones no doubt caused untold hardship for the families of the victims, they pale in comparison to the much more consequential lies told by major media outlets with far greater influence.

When corporate media figures tell lies that are useful to the establishment, they are promoted, not called to account.

In 2018 Luke Harding at the Guardian lied and published a story that "Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy" (headline later amended with "sources say" after the fake story was debunked) in order to bolster the Russiagate narrative. It was proven without a shadow of a doubt that Manafort never went to the Embassy or had any contact at all with Assange (who was under blanket surveillance), at any time. However, to this day this provably fake story remains on The Guardian website, without any sort of editor's note that is it false or that it was all a pack of lies!(1) No retraction was ever issued. Luke Harding remains an esteemed foreign correspondent for The Guardian.

In 2002, Jonah Golberg told numerous lies in a completely false article in The New Yorker that sought to establish a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein called, "The Great Terror".(2) This article was cited repeatedly during the run up to the war as justification for the subsequent invasion and greatly helped contribute to an environment where a majority of Americans thought that Iraq was linked to Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers. More than a million people were killed, in no small part because of his lies. And Goldberg? He was promoted to editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, perhaps the most prestigious and influential journal in the country. He remains in this position today.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar examples. The idea suggested in the original OP that corporate/established media is somehow more credible or held to a higher standard than independent media is simply not true. Unfortunately there are a ton of lies, falsehoods and propaganda out there, and it is up to all of us to be necessarily skeptical no matter where we get our information and do our due diligence.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

2. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/03/25/the-great-terr...

anonymousiam 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A sympathetic jury can be an enemy of justice.

I'm not an Alex Jones fan, but I don't understand how a conspiracy theory about the mass shooting could be construed as defamation against the parents of the victims. And the $1.3B judgement does seem excessive to me.

AlexandrB 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You should read up on some details. The defamation claim is because Alex Jones accused the parents of being actors who are part of staging the false flag. The huge judgement is partly because Alex Jones failed to comply[1][2] with basic court procedure like discovery in a timely way so a default judgement was entered.

Despite his resources, Alex Jones completely failed to get competent legal representation and screwed himself. He then portrayed himself as the victim of an unjust legal system.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-l...

> Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited the defendants' "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the ruling. Bellis noted that defendants failed to turned over financial and analytics data that were requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs.

[2] https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rips-alex-jones-c...

> Bellis reportedly said Jones' attorneys "failure to produce critical material information that the plaintiffs needed to prove their claims" was a "callous disregard of their obligation," the Hartford Courant reported.

tbrownaw 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> The huge judgement is partly because Alex Jones failed to comply with basic court procedure like discovery in a timely way so a default judgement was entered.

Yeah. Reufsing to cooperate with the court has to always be at least as bad as losing your case would have been.

protocolture 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The specific conspiracy theory implied fraud and cover up on behalf of the parents. Lmao.