Fake Election History

Consequently, the political sphere is now being colonised by the media, and politics has begun re-orientating itself to satisfy the logic of media organisations (Meyer, 2002, p. 71). Therefore, the media are active participants in the policymaking process and the ability to stimulate change or maintain the status quo depends on their choice of subject or policy issue and how they frame it. Active investigative reporting attempts to shape policy outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that it always represents the most successful approach for gaining policy changes (Spitzer, 1993, p. 7). In fact, sometimes passive, straight reporting can have a greater influence on policy choices. When this occurs, media independence is largely bypassed, as the news generated depends solely on the information released (as public relations material) from legitimate news sources. For example, in the United States, White House staff routinely make ‘leaks’ - expressively to influence policy decisions (Davis, 1992, p. 143; Robinson, 2001, p. 948). Robinson noted that journalists regard “leaks… as indispensable to their work” and that they are aware of their use by officials in return for scoops (2001, p. 949).

Some people watch these stories live on television. Others read them online via the new websites. And then they are the few that still read them in print, either via the newspaper or a magazine like Newsweek. If one of these outlets fail to report accurately and factually, hundreds of thousands of readers and viewers are left uneducated. For example, readers of the Newsweek magazine were made to believe that, whether true or not, Romney wasn’t even a real choice for president. These readers then went on to vote, without really knowing the facts, and therefore creating an outcome that affected the entire nation. The most important thing an American citizen can have is knowledge and media bias takes that

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

The First Amendment has its flaws; it does not protect against all forms speech and articles with negative intent. In each of the cases, newspaper organizations were tried for using their freedom of press. Time, place and manner regulation treats all acts of speech the same. Under this guideline, people may socialize freely in public, but may not talk at a time or place that would cause major traffic blockage, because it’s affecting the rights of other individuals. The Court developed the time, place, and manner regulation to decide if federal jurisdictions of free speech were legal under the Constitution. In this rule, limitations on free speech are solely constitutional if the speech’s content is neutral. The right’s granted under the First

In article 8, Michael Parenti challenges the view that the mainstream media in the United States is free, independent, neutral and objective. Parenti claims that the media “often behaves like the lapdogs of Plutocracy”. Plutocracy is a government that is basically controlled and ruled by the wealthy in that country. Essentially what this means is that the media is run by these giant wealthy corporations and instead of media doing its job, and informing the general public, instead it only says what these corporations want them to say. Hard hitting news that shines a negative light on these wealthy groups is banned because it makes them look bad. One of the best pieces of evidence he offers is the slew of reporters that have been fired or forced

Reviewing precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan about the right to make false statements. In this case, the Court ruled that states must prove that he or she had malice whining creating a false statement. This case is related to the United States v. Fields as it explains that speech is restricted for content reasons if and only malice can be proven. Another precedent is Texas v. Johnson as it demonstrates the right to disagreeable speech as he had the right to free speech when he burned his flag. The case related by the person’s speech as it would offends the doings by lying.

In a particularly harsh and surprising article on the typically conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, the writer voices his anger with Trump’s dubitable claims that British Intelligence wiretapped President Trump on behalf of the Obama administration. He concludes his article with the statement, “Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39 percent. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President.” While this is an especially severe statement, according to the aforementioned Fox News poll, the majority of people “think it’s better for the country if the news media ‘cover the president aggressively.’” The result of this poll is compatible with the public’s positive response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times v. United States. With the new administration, freedom of the press will remain at the forefront as questions continue to arise about what type of press is best for the

Cases involving reporter’s privilege have grown in numbers since the late 1990’s. The most recent case was the case against James Risen that lasted over seven years, ending in 2015. When it was decided that Risen would not have to testify on where he got the information described in his book, “State of War.” The information supposedly came from a former CIA operative and was about a mission that had gone south in Iran.This is said to be part of Obama’s crackdown on federal employees talking to the press. Risen isn’t the only reporter that has had president going after

The media has always been a widespread river of constantly flowing information. People have counted on the media to give them their news for years. Recently, it’s been coming into question how accurate the news is. With the recent Fake News epidemic, (a surge in news, primarily circulating through social media, using falsities that are being passed off as fact) people have been concerned about the validity of the news they receive daily, and people have been wondering what to do about it. The person with the most influence over the country currently is Donald Trump, and he has chosen to respond by haphazardly accusing reputable news sources of being fake. This puts a strain on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First

v. Sullivan in which the court ruled that issues that impacted the public are to be unrestricted, vigorous, and public despite the fact that it may heavily criticize the government and its officials. Lewis saw this ruling as a good thing because it gave the media the power to have investigative journalism concerning controversies, such as the Watergate scandal. I do believe this ruling is beneficial for the public, but I think it needs revising in our modern world. The rise of technology and social media has provided a platform for more people to create content. The world of blogging has increased over the years and the definition of a journalist is up for interpretation.

In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States, a battle between the rights of the Executive branch and the right of free press took place. The Times published confidential documents that contained information contrary to what the government had reported to the people about the Vietnam War. These documents, now known as “the Pentagon Papers”, were deemed by the government to contain classified information. The six to three ruling handed down by the Justices sided with the Times and the

On the third, Trump tweeted “The rigged Dem Primary, one of the biggest political stories in years, got ZERO coverage on Fake News Network TV last night. Disgraceful!”. Trump attempts to show the extent of bias in the media exposing that they didn’t report a major event. This tweet has bias towards Trump’s personal agenda against the media. Additionally, Trump exposes the strength of the media’s gatekeepers and how greatly they can impact which issues are talked about.

In order to vote, American citizens must meet several requirements, and complete the registration process. To be eligible to vote, at the very least, one must be a US citizen, meet state residency requirements, and be at least 18 years old (“Register to Vote,” n.d.). Efforts have been made over the course of American history to make voting a more simple and inclusive process, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Ash & Lamperti, 2013, p. 14). However, the article “Elections 2012: Suppressing Fraud or Suppressing the Vote?” by Arlene Ash and John Lamperti strongly argues that in the past decade, these efforts have been curtailed through regulations to prevent voter fraud (2013, p. 14-15). Examples

To fully understand we much focus on these three aspects of the issue. Above all, it is the media's job to publish what is true. It is its job to give the audience news and that of truthful news. The most serious concern with the media is that what they reveal to the audience must be true because as a society we are greatly influenced by what we read, hear, and see through the press. This is why libel is more serious than privacy issues. Publishing false or inaccurate information directly is the biggest, and most devastating thing a journalist or media can do. That is the

In order to recognize the reasons behind the assumption that the Fourth Estate is dead, its principles and codes needed to be made clear. The term “Fourth Estate” was used by conservative Edmund Burke in the eighteenth century as a way to mock the press as they always seek to expose and disclose information that are not “desired” to be known. (Hirst) However, over time, it has become important description of the objectives that are assumed to be a must for the press. In specific, “Fourth Estate” describes the role of the press as “watch dogs” in society. The definition our society attached to the press varies. For instance, Pippa Norris stated in the book “Driving Democracy:”