May 20, 2004
Fox And Friends
The other day I was watching FOX News (which should be the beginning of many jokes, I know) and I see Rupert Murdoch being interviewed by…Oliver North. The segment was for North’s War Stories, and the line of questioning pertained to media coverage of the Iraq War.
I couldn’t and still can’t completely wrap my head around this. Here you have North, a liar (before Congress!), convicted felon (until George H.W. Bush pardoned him) and — I would say— traitor (for having deliberately subverted the U.S. Constitution to conduct a secret war). At any rate, as a crimimal and a perjurer, North does not exude the credentials of an ideal journalist (i.e. objective, truth-seeking, unbiased, etc.).
So, of course, FOX hired him.
Anyway, so there North is, interviewing the owner of Fox News’s parent company, News Corporation ("News") ON a Fox News program ABOUT HOW television news channels, including FOX, are covering the war (or, “ covered the war”as they stated, referring to the initial invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003). Murdoch and North discussing media bias in the coverage was a new spin on spin; spin cubed, or perhaps even to the 4th or 5th power.
Holy calypso! About a half hour after I penned this, I got a call from [NAME WITHHELD] of the law firm of [NAME WITHHELD], which represents News.
Okay, at this point I should mention that...I used to work for News and FOX (okay I know!), first as a paralegal at firm retained by News (which was absorbed by the firm that just called me), and later, as an intellectual property consultant in the company’s legal department. Now, during this time, I was attending graduate school to study business journalism. It was...really difficult, to say the least, to know so much about the inner workings of a corporation (especially one I loathed) and, at the same time, be unable to write about it due to the confines of client-attorney privilege. I just have to try forget all the sexy stories I know, but cannot tell, even though now I have no connection to News.
As if it isn’t weird enough that I worked for Rupert Murdoch, by ABSOLUTE coincidence, the very same month I began working in-house at News, as a consultant, the VP who brought me in became an adjunct professor at my college, and taught Legal and Ethical Issues for Journalists. Now, lest you be concerned that I was taught journalistic ethics by someone who represents the New York Post in court, I want to go on record here and say that was a fantastic teacher, and did not pull any punches when discussing examples of legal or ethical issues that involved News properties. She is also a liberal, and a Democrat. I guess you could say her only flaw is working for Rupert Murdoch.
Anyway, as I said, the lawyer for News wanted my advice on a matter I had worked on. Apparently, after I left the firm, this particular matter fell through theh cracks. Now it had come back to haunt them, and the last record on file was an unanswered query letter I had sent out. Boy, if only I could tell you the details! Some of it is a matter of public record, but legal ethics prohibit me from revealing it nonetheless.
UPDATE, September 2004. I just learned that http://www.alternet.org/ (a project of the nonprofit Independent Media Institute) has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel FOX News’s trademark registration for “Fair and Balanced”because the words are (1) descriptive of general news content, and therefore not worthy of being awarded exclusive use by any one news organization, and (2) that the words misrepresent FOX News coverage, which a majority of observers believe is anything but fair or balanced. If you want to donate money to the cause, click here. Donations of $30 or more will get you a free DVD of the documentary, “Outfoxed.”
Ahh intellectual property disputes. FOX. “Fair and Balanced.” This brings me back. If only I could tell you the behind-the-scene-stories I know about when Bill O’Reilly filed his lawsuit against Al Franken for using “fair and balanced” in his book title, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Sadly, I can’t. When the case was filed, I no longer had any connection to News. But, I can’t tell the fun stuff, because I have to protect friends and colleagues who still work there.
Suffice it to say, however, and this is public record. the lawyers working for FOX really botched that suit. The complaint they filed against Franken was so flawed that the judge quickly dismissed it. “There are hard cases and there are easy cases, said District Judge Denny Chin. “This is an easy case, for in my view the case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally.” (Click here to read the whole court transcript — its pretty sweeet.) Also, word has it (read Franken’s book — by sheer coincidence, I bought mine with a Barnes and Noble gift certificate given to me by an intellectual property lawyer at News) that what made O’Reilly really go ballistic, was the fact that his picture appeared on the cover of Franken’s book (and next to the words “liar...lies” no less), and that it was not a very flattering image.
If that was really what got O’Reilly’s goat, I posit this: Had FOX not claimed trademark infringement, but instead filed a lawsuit based on “rights of publicity” (i.e. that Franken was using O’Reilly’s image to promote his book and profit), the company might well have successfully convinced a court to order the removal of O’Reilly’s dumb face. That is a much stronger argument than the dumb trademark infringement one they filed. You know where I learned about rights of publicity issues? Yep, my professor and former boss from News Corp.
Posted by MJuhre at 01:50 PM | Comments (0)