Silent_Player said:
Why should erroneous reporting be a crime? To say, "because it is a crime" is begging the question.
Libel and slander laws exist for the same reason as laws against assault: they protect people. Were it legal to just punch people in the face until you got your way, then society would be run by the musclebound and served by the meek and the bruised, but the law puts us on more of an even keel. Likewise, without libel laws, society can be run by whomever can shout the loudest. Corporations with big advertising budgets can convince everyone that the little guys are dangerous, news organizations with large followings can tell their viewers what not to buy, et cetera. They both protect the little guy from the big guy, which I can't see a problem with. It infringes on the "property of your body" only when you'd be infringing on another's: your right to throw punches ends at my face, your right to think untrue things ends when you defame me publicly.
Furthermore, assuming that news organizations are telling the truth, or are at least spitting distance from the truth, is necessary. People have jobs; they don't have time to research every thing they come across. Obviously it's not a perfect system, but I think what we're demonstrating here is that it's a self-monitoring system: when news organizations break that assumed vow of honesty, a whole bunch of people make a whole bunch of noise, and eventually they're going to have to deal with it.
By the way, if there were no assumption that the news is telling the truth, then there would be no reason to assume that the evidence they show would be accurate. The assumption that we are being told the truth is necessary for one to believe anything that didn't actually occur to oneself. No matter how diligent a reporter you are, sooner or later you're going to have to trust someone's word about what's going on in Washington, because you can't just hang in the back of every Senate session, taking notes.
Silent_Player said:
The absurdity of a so-called right to reputation can be demonstrated accordingly.
Coca-Cola has, for the past decade, been the top seller of soda pop. But, somehow, Pepsi releases a new brand that helps Pepsi outsell Coca-Cola. As a result, Coca-Cola's reputation as "the best soda pop provider" is tarnished and damaged. Are we to expect legal action taken against Pepsi? or when Pepsi claims in its advertisements that its soda pop is the best, should Coca-Cola sue?
It may be claimed that this is different than blatant erroneous reporting and distortions, as FOX did, but how?
It is different, because Pepsi isn't lying, they're simply excelling. And when Pepsi says their soda is better, they're saying something subjective: not a fact, an opinion, which cannot by its very nature be true or false, and thus cannot be libel.
But, let's make it the same. Imagine Pepsi's next big ad campaign IS a blatantly untrue fact to defame Coke's reputation. "Pepsi: Because Coca-Cola is on the verge of economic ruin!" is their next slogan. What's wrong with that? All's fair in love and soda wars?
No. Coke's been presenting itself as financially flush, so people are going to want to know what's happening. The IRS, the stakeholders, the Executive Officers, and the accountants are all going to get to a big room, hashing out the truth, costing the company hundreds of valuable man-hours. And Coke is publicly traded company! If stockholders think the company's about to fail, they'll sell, sell, sell, and Coke's going to lose a lot of money. Even if it's only the most panicky of holders that sell, it'll cause the stock to dip, and that will make the less panicky sell. Coke loses a significant amount of money, their advertising budget is slashed, and a reduced number of people get to see their new ad campaign: "Coke: We're actually financially secure, thank you". Reduced advertising, reduced consumption, reduced profit. All because of a lie that Pepsi knowingly told the world, with malicious intent. Coke is out millions of dollars here, you don't think they should sue?