• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Media should be sued for broadcasting wrong/damaging information

Iamme

Philosopher
I
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
6,215
Just as I suspected. The woman who claimed that she found a fingertip in her bowl of Wendy's chili is now being arrested. That is all we know at this time. But I suspect this woman, who has a past history of lawsuits against companies has created *this* story as well.

Do you realize the monetary damage she has caused Wendy's? Would *you* go to Wendy's now, after this story? Could you imagine carefully looking at every kidney bean on your spoon, to see if it's really a kidney bean or something else instead?

But the real problem is with this probable bogus story. It's in the fact that it got broadcast , nationally, by the media, before they had all the facts. Even though the media is given Constitutional priveleges to print what they want, they should not be able to print damaging information that is not true, and should be held liable, in the same way that people can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theater, even though we have freedom of spech.
 
Iamme said:

Even though the media is given Constitutional priveleges to print what they want, they should not be able to print damaging information that is not true, and should be held liable, in the same way that people can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theater, even though we have freedom of spech.
Click to expand...

Look up the word "libel."

The media are not allowed to print damaging information that is not true, and they are held liable if they do.

I suspect that if you look at the actual news reports, they were very careful to only print statement that were true -- such as the fact that the woman "claimed" that she found a finger.
 
new drkitten---They shouldn't even be allowed to *suggest* such information before they learn the facts as even when they use the word "claim"...well, as I said, *I* would not go to Wendy's to get their chili, or to eat there at all for that matter! Wendy's themselves claims revenues dropped way off after this report was aired by the media. If they lost revenue because of this story, and the story was a fabrication, the media caused it and is responsible!

You could argue that it is the viewers fault for interpreting the word "claim" to mean the woman actually did it. Tough. The media aired the story and if they didn't air the stiory, Wendy's would not have lost money! If something like this ever happened to me (like if I owned a Wendy's), I would personally want to kill somebody, if the courts ruled that the media was in their right to disclose this!) Then I'd say to the courts, "FINE! Then *you* pay me for my losses!
 
But if the media has to wait until something is 'proved' then there wouldn't be much in the way of news or any sort. Using the Wendy's finger food story as an example nothing would qualify to be reported by those standards as yet. The source of the finger isn't known for sure, the person claiming to have found it hasn't been proved to be responsible yet. Even trial verdicts aren't absolute proof, just beyond resonable doubt so those couldn't be reported either.
 
I just asked my friend, sitting here, who frequents Wendy's to eat their chili, with his lady friend, if he will go there to eat the chile if it is learned for sure that the story was a fabrication.

He said that he and his lady friend have talked about this, and they will NOT go there to eat that chili. And he says that he believes not only has this story helped ruin Wendy's business but probably other chili makers like Hormel.
 
The problem here is that the media didn't cause this, the woman did. They reported the facts as they knew them, that a woman claimed to have found a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili. Since it has increasingly looked like this is a fraud, the media has reported that too. If anyone is to blame for the decline in Wendy's revenues and the laying off of Wendy's workers, it is the woman who perpetrated the fraud, not the media.

If the Media had somehow been involved in creating the fraud, it might be fair to hold them liable for Wendy's damages. Otherwise, I say blame the culprit, not the media.
 
"...in the same way that people can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theater, even though we have freedom of spech."

I don't know how it is where you live, but here in the real world people are allowed to scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theater..anytime that there IS a fire.

And by the same token, newspapers are allowed to print that a bowl of Wendy's chili had a finger in it...as long as there WAS a bowl of Wendy's chili that had a finger in it.

What newspapers are NOT required to do, is to predict the future, and print that it is a hoax *before* that turns out to be the case.


How is it on your planet, again?
 
Would you also like to restrict the media from reporting about manhunts for 'alleged' sexual predators, cop killers, and mass-murderers who have not been convicted?

Just who sjhould have the final say as to what the media CAN print? The government...?
 
Phillybee said:
Would you also like to restrict the media from reporting about manhunts for 'alleged' sexual predators, cop killers, and mass-murderers who have not been convicted?

Just who sjhould have the final say as to what the media CAN print? The government...?
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------------
I *knew* such a question as yours would come up!

I haven't thought of *who* should have the say...but let me address your first paragraph. Obviously, we all want to know if *anything* out in the world could cause us harm, and want someone like the news media to inform us, whether it be our possibly biting into a finger in a bowl of chili, or a killer pedophile that is on the loose. In both cases, the media better damn be sure when they put a name up on the screen, that the accused party is indeed the party, or be prepared to have one big lawsuit filed against them if they are wrong in their assertions. Often times, in past cases, when such mistakes have been made, careers have been ruined, even after the media has made a retraction, or, if the case went to court and the person was aquitted.

I already know what the next question most likely will be. Somethiong like, "Well, if we waited till the proof is always in before the media can say something, then perhaps more people would be vulnerable." Tough. Then that's just too bad. Then organize a think tank of 200 I.Q. people and have them figure something out. All I *do* know is you can't put up on tv, for the whole world to see, some assertion that is possibly not true that can ruin people.
 
(crimresearch)

How is it on your planet, again?

(Iamme)

It's snowing on April 22nd!...after it was 82 just the other day.:D
 
crimresearch and phillybee---I undertand what you are both saying. What you say makes sense. And I realize in all seriousness that even a group of 200 I.Q. people most likely will not come up with any magic solutions. Maybe the answer lies in the fact we have to somehow educate people to the legality of how the news media reports things according to what actually happened and that they have no responsibility to the actual *cause* and that people need to understand this and....ach....I don't know...I still wouldn't get a bowl of Wendy's chili ever again no matter *what* they say about that woman and her hoaxes. Some copycat person could start planting things in Wendy's chili after seeing this on tv or reading about it in the paper.

Here I was about to admit that it's not really the medias fault, yet, look at me. Look at my friend. Look at *his* friend. None of us are going to get any of that chili and that is wrecking the business of Wendy's. You could saythat we are being paranoid for nothing, being that now they came out aboput the truth regarding this woman. Maybe so. But is that going to help Wendy's? None of this would have happened if the media would have held off a few days till the police investigated.

By all rights, it is the *woman* who should be sued. But since she most likely will never have the money to cover the damage she caused, the next likely subject to take the fall for this would be the media because they are the ones who actually caused the loss by being too hasty to report it before waiting to get the facts.

I know what you are going to ask now ( I could probably carry on a debate with myself): *If* the media always waited a few days, then by that time someone else might be dead. I guess I'm going in circles. I addressed this in the post above. What did I say? Tough?

I guess I have to think on this one some more.
 
Iamme said:
Even though the media is given Constitutional priveleges to print what they want, they should not be able to print damaging information that is not true, and should be held liable, in the same way that people can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theater, even though we have freedom of spech.
Click to expand...
Absence of malice.
 
Iamme said:
Here I was about to admit that it's not really the medias fault, yet, look at me. Look at my friend. Look at *his* friend. None of us are going to get any of that chili and that is wrecking the business of Wendy's. You could saythat we are being paranoid for nothing, being that now they came out aboput the truth regarding this woman. Maybe so. But is that going to help Wendy's? None of this would have happened if the media would have held off a few days till the police investigated.
Click to expand...

So, if it had turned out to be the result of a horrible accident at the chili plant, you would have been happy to eat that chili and find some more body parts in it? And you wouldn't complain that someone should have warned you about bits of people showing up in the chili?

Well, I've got good news! A food product you buy all the time, one you have in your house right now, is being investigated for possible contamination by raw sewage! But since it's not conclusively proven, I wouldn't want to damage the company's business, so I won't tell you what that food is.

Happy eating!
 
Tragic Monkey---Thanks for warning me. But seeing that in my job I have swept up raw sewage and then went to eat without washing my hands...I have my head down in toilets quite frequently...or, last night a neighbor boy peed on me and I just let it dry... and hmmm, I may have set my candybar on that lap as well...oh well, at least I am thankful I have a good immune system.:D

But chowing down on somebody's finger, that even supposedly had a fingernail on it? Ewwwwww.
 
Iamme said:
Just as I suspected. The woman who claimed that she found a fingertip in her bowl of Wendy's chili is now being arrested. That is all we know at this time. But I suspect this woman, who has a past history of lawsuits against companies has created *this* story as well.

Do you realize the monetary damage she has caused Wendy's? Would *you* go to Wendy's now, after this story? Could you imagine carefully looking at every kidney bean on your spoon, to see if it's really a kidney bean or something else instead?

But the real problem is with this probable bogus story. It's in the fact that it got broadcast , nationally, by the media, before they had all the facts. Even though the media is given Constitutional priveleges to print what they want, they should not be able to print damaging information that is not true, and should be held liable, in the same way that people can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theater, even though we have freedom of spech.
Click to expand...

The woman should be held liable - and she is - the new media simply reported the story. That is their job. What they reported was accurate - a woman claimed to have found a finger in her chili.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom