Intent to Sue CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Briebert, FOX, Reuters, Washington Post and Any and All Dishonest Pundits
Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to publish and distribute information in books, magazines, and newspapers without government intervention.
However that does not give you the right to fabricate, spin and or otherwise deceive the American public.
Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not absolute. Notwithstanding the limitations placed on it, the press exercises enormous power and influence, and is burdened with commensurate responsibility. Because journalists generally have access to more information than does the average individual, they serve as the eyes, ears, and voice of the public.
All men have a right to print and publish whatever they may deem proper, unless by doing so they infringe the rights of another, as in the case of copyrights, (q.v.) when they may be enjoined. For any injury they may commit against the public or individuals they may be punished, either by indictment, or by a civil action at the suit of the party injured, when the injury has been committed against a private individual. Vide Const. of the U. S. Amend. art. 1, and Liberty of the Press.
A person injured as a result of the negligent conduct of another individual or entity has the right to file a lawsuit seeking compensation.
Injury is legally defined as:
1. physical harm or damage to a person, property, etc.
2. an injurious act; specif.,
a. an offense against a person’s feelings, dignity, etc.
b. loss in value inflicted on a business, reputation, etc.
c. a violation of rights; wrong
3. an insult
Due to the fact that governing laws provide the ‘Press’ with the right to access to governmental agencies, locations, crime scenes, etc., that are not otherwise granted to ordinary citizens, all people writing for the press and media sources have a fiduciary responsibility when reporting information to the public, to report all the facts concerning the incidents that they may choose to report.
The withholding of facts relevant to a news report for the purpose of supporting an opinion of the person who writes said report, is an intentional tort inflicted deliberately upon the public audience subjected to the report itself.
A person who writes and or reports for the press has the absolute right to express his or her own opinion(s), concerning the facts that are reported. However, when opinions are expressed, said opinions must be identified as such and all known facts that would allow the public to make their own determination of whether or not the reporter’s opinion(s) have merit, must be revealed. At no time, should a member of the press express and opinion as a fact.
An example of withholding facts and or expressing an opinion as a fact, can be demonstrated by the following example:
Chris reporting for MSNBC news arrives at a plane crash site. Upon interviewing numerous witnesses to the accident, the police and crash investigators, Chris learns that a passenger plane carrying 200 passengers left New York at 2:00 PM headed to the Las Angeles, crashed 32 minutes after the plane took off from New York, killing all people on board the plane.
During the flight, the pilot who was drunk while flying the plane, passed out at the controls of the plane. Additionally, Chris learns that the only other person who could fly the plane was not present in the cockpit when the pilot passed out, because he or she left the cockpit to smoke some weed in the lavatory.
Chris later reports to the public that a passenger plane travelling from New York to Las Angeles crashed 32 minutes after it took off from New York, killing all 200 people on board. Chris further reports that the crash was likely caused by mechanical failure.
Although, it makes absolutely no difference why Chris withheld the fact that the pilot was passed out drunk and the copilot was getting high in the lavatory, in this instance let us assume that the airline was a major advertiser to the parent company of the news agency Chris works for.
Arguably, in absence of final investigation report from the FAA, Chris had the right to his opinion that the plane crash could have likely been caused by a mechanical failure. However, Chris was given facts that anyone who did not have the means and or access to the witnesses and investitures at the crash site, would not have knowledge of.
The fact that the pilot and copilot were incapacitated at the time of the crash would be very important to anyone who cared about one of more of the dead passengers, in making their own determinations as to why the person or persons they cared about died.
In the aforementioned instance, Chris injured people who relied on him to report the facts that they were not privy to.
There is no difference in the example of a reporter reporting the aforementioned example than a reporter or reporters, reporting that a woman and her baby were ejected from a political rally by a presidential candidate, omitting the fact that the woman and her child were not present when the candidate made a comment to remove them.
Arguably, some may argue that the reporter or reporters of the incident should of notified the public that the candidate was jovial at the time and most likely promulgating humor. In my opinion the reporter was under no fiduciary responsibility to the public to determine what the candidates reasoning was for making the remark.
However, omitting the highly important fact that the woman and child had previously left the venue, to support an opinion that the candidate was a scumbag for ejecting a woman and her baby from a political rally, is in fact injurious and unethical.
Throughout the 2016 elections, one unethical pundit after another, has repeatedly omitted and or altered numerous facts to support their numerous public reports concerning Donald Trump. Arguably, these pundits misunderstand and or ignore exactly what their responsibilities are to the general public. In all due consideration, these pundits must be held liable for their deplorable behavior.