Fair and Balanced...now shuddup!
September 20, 2010 12:58 PM   Subscribe

Fox News has taken a leaf off Scientology's book, and sued for copyright infringement a Democratic candidate who dared use Fox News footage in his campaign ad.
posted by Skeptic (26 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Sorry...her campaign ad. My bad, please edit...
posted by Skeptic at 12:59 PM on September 20, 2010


I'm really not seeing the connection to Scientology here.
posted by HuronBob at 1:03 PM on September 20, 2010


Hmm...on one hand, I'm inclined to be happy about anything that pisses Fox off. On the other hand, the campaign ad consisted almost entirely of a Fox news clip. Pointed, but kind of weak in the creativity department.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 1:07 PM on September 20, 2010


To be fair, the ad is almost only a Fox news clip. I can understand fair use of short clips here and there, but this is almost all their footage.
posted by mathowie at 1:08 PM on September 20, 2010


Fox News and Scientology, two great tastes that taste great together
posted by sswiller at 1:09 PM on September 20, 2010


As a sidenote, Fox has also contributed money to the campaign of the Republican in the race.
posted by inigo2 at 1:10 PM on September 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


Fair Use is only a defensible position in court.
posted by nimsey lou at 1:11 PM on September 20, 2010


yea, scientology is hardly a standout in copyright suits - also, 2 out of the 3 counts in the indictment are for "invasion of privacy" of Mike Wallace because Fox was concerned the ad could be construed as an endorsement.

I gotta say... they got a point on that.
posted by victors at 1:12 PM on September 20, 2010


Fox News and Scientology, two great tastes that taste great together

Case in point

But seriously, Fox news has invested millions in the republican governors campaign committee. They've got equity. Do you think Apple would let Microsoft use their own footage in an ad for a competing product? Of course not!
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on September 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm no fan of Fox News, but this totally reeks of infringement. And Chris Wallace has a point as well because this can easily be misconstrued as an endorsement from him.
posted by chimaera at 1:26 PM on September 20, 2010


Case in point

Thanks. Nice little nugget there...

"Van Susteren is married to John P. Coale. They are both Scientologists. Coale serves as an adviser for Sarah Palin."
posted by sswiller at 1:26 PM on September 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


As a sidenote, Fox has also contributed money to the campaign of the Republican in the race.

How dare a candidate not sponsored with Rupert Murdoch's money use Murdoch's resources! This isn't how we buy politicians in America.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:36 PM on September 20, 2010 [8 favorites]


inigo2: "As a sidenote, Fox has also contributed money to the campaign of the Republican in the race."

I like how they say they're suing Carnahan in part because she "harmed the value of the original work by compromising its apparent objectivity."
posted by Rhaomi at 1:44 PM on September 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


"We know the interview made him look like a douchebag, but we've invested money in him which makes him our douchebag. You want to make him look bad? Find your own footage of one of your reporters getting him to reveal his hypocrisy. Our footage is reserved for us, so that we can laugh maniacally at what utter bastards we really are..."
posted by quin at 1:59 PM on September 20, 2010



The real question here is - what were Fox's editors thinking when the let Wallace go forward with that line of questioning ? That was pretty dangerously close to journalism there.

At least I can rest knowing that CNN and MSNBC would never stoop to such a thing.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:14 PM on September 20, 2010


Fox News also issued a cease and desist order to the John McCain campaign in 2008:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/fox-news-v-mccain
posted by gyc at 2:38 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


The ad wasn't used under Fair Use, so I don't see why Fox can't sue. Any rights holder can do that.

ABC/NBC/BBC would do the same thing--even for a candidate they approved of. Not that news organizations approve of any candidates for public office.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:43 PM on September 20, 2010


I like how they say they're suing Carnahan in part because she "harmed the value of the original work by compromising its apparent objectivity."

It would be pretty funny to have a court rule that Fox News has no expectation of objectivity.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:01 PM on September 20, 2010 [5 favorites]


Ideefixe The ad wasn't used under Fair Use, so I don't see why Fox can't sue.

Huh? Do you think that one needs to put some kind of "Fair Use" sticker on it? Nope. "Fair use" doctrine is fairly complex, and IANAL but this appears to be a rather straightforward case of it, as it appears from the convoluted efforts by Fox News' lawyers in their complaint to present it as a commercial use of Fox's copyrighted material.

(This said, the funniest thing about the complaint is that it calls the ad a "smear ad"...does this mean that Fox believes Wallace smeared Blunt??)
posted by Skeptic at 3:33 PM on September 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


And the reason for my parallel with Scientology is that, although Fox appears to be quite aware that Callahan's ad will more than likely be covered by the Fair Use doctrine, it has brought forward this lawsuit, without apparently even a previous cease & desist letter. Considering the cost of such a lawsuit for the defendant, this stinks of legal harassment.
posted by Skeptic at 3:42 PM on September 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


...does this mean that Fox believes Wallace smeared Blunt??

it means it was a tiny piece of a larger journalistic interview taken completely out of context - I have no idea what the context was but it's a pretty smeary ad wrt tactics

look, fuck fox, coming and going, they are institutionalized race baiting, fear mongering assholes - this isn't the most egregious thing they have done, probably not even this week.
posted by victors at 3:56 PM on September 20, 2010


I hate this type of ad. Great, you've told me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy but you've given me no good reason to vote for you.

"I'm not that guy" isn't good enough.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 5:25 PM on September 20, 2010


IOKIYAR*
posted by wierdo at 6:41 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I hate this type of ad. Great, you've told me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy but you've given me no good reason to vote for you.

"I'm not that guy" isn't good enough.


Given that that guy will get in if people don't vote for someone else, and given that somewhere north of 90% of contested races are a Republican vs. a Democrat, "that guys sucks" is in fact a reason to vote for the other guy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:23 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Aw, there's so much more to say about this race! Missouri big political families battle it out! Poll numbers may look shaky for Carnahan, but this is a woman whose father beat John Ashcroft despite being dead! The U.S. could have FOUR states with two female senators each! This is fun stuff, people!
posted by naoko at 10:19 PM on September 20, 2010


I wonder how many clueless stoners out in the hills of Missouri vote for Blunt simply because of his name?

It would be pretty funny to have a court rule that Fox News has no expectation of objectivity.

Especially since Fox is the only "news organization" to sue for the right to misinform the public... and win.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:52 AM on September 21, 2010


« Older Over the course of three years, designer Christien...  |  Map and streaming playlist of ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments