Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) [LWN.net]

Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times)

Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:32 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068)
In reply to: Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) by ccchips
Parent article: Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times)

You shouldn't blame your father and friends for the piano needing tuning. That's pretty normal after a move of any significance.

I would like to underscore your experience and that of "cpm" regarding the media. Every single time where I've had first hand knowledge of an event covered by the news media, the resulting story bore almost no resemblance to what I witnessed. In each case, it seemed that the reporter had talked to someone who had interests in spinning the story in a way orthogonal to reality. It's as if the reporter had said "you draw your line and I'll plot some points to support that".

Recent example: Dan Rather of CBS news dragging the names of LANL and an individual through the mud after a certain episode with a Mustang had been thoroughly investigated by appropriate legal authorities. Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendment, and CBS News has the same inappropriate level of admiration from the general public as does the NYT.

Dan Rather is also a frequent apologist for Microsoft. I'll always remember how he reported the news a few years ago of someone throwing a pie in Bill Gates' face. Rather was practically foaming at the mouth. I wish I'd recorded that. Priceless.

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Oct 13, 2003 16:17 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendment

The First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. If a reporter or organization runs a story that's a "pack of lies" they can be sued pretty handily. If Dan Rather says on the evening news that company XYZ is selling cars that burst into flames after 14,000 miles, he can be (and would be) sued and would most likely lose -- unless, of course, the car actually did burst into flames at or around 14,000 miles. The only exception here is if Rather said it as an opinion rather than fact, because you cannot sue someone for stating their opinion, no matter how derogatory it may be. (Therefore, "wow, that new Chrysler looks like it would burst into flames before it hit 14,000 miles" might be damaging, but it's legal.) The First Amendment is never protection against libel and slander -- something the folks at SCO would do well to remember.

Posted Oct 13, 2003 19:13 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

I'm sure you're right about all that. CBS News is probably careful to phrase things in just the right way to weasel out in court. Some of the "transducers" which Rather's report implied never existed happen to be sitting on my desk at work. The rest are stored about 50 ft. away. But since CBS never outright stated their non-existence, they can squirm away.

Another curious Rather-ism: When Microsoft announced that it would be shutting down chatrooms worldwide since it could not properly monitor them, Dan's spin was that Microsoft will be even more profitable since the chatrooms did not provide a revenue stream. That was presented as an unqualified fact, not even as the opinion of a Microsoft spokesman. But subtle word choices like should or may may keep them out of the position of touting stock.