Does Fox deserve the "Fair and balanced" slogan?

[Yago]

I think the underlying assumption is that in using the slogan, you are promoting it, creating a market for it, if you will. Your money went into promoting it, so others shouldn't profit from it. That's the whole point behind trademarks.

Hm, if they had copy-right-laws in antiquity, the jews could have prevented the christians from using names from the old-testament. Indeed, using the whole old testament. Like scientology does today.

But that's off topic. A general problems with trademarks is, in my opinion, what if you copyright words like "black", "white", "sun" and so on. Build up a marketname -> sun, the freshmaker ? Should that be possible ? Then, when someone is making a band called "the sun", suing them for copyright infringement ?

 

[phoenix_night]

@Duke of Marlbrough,
No problem, but when it turns to false adveritising and blatant lies, I don't like it.

 

[Plexus]

In legal terms, they are in the right. In political terms, they lean to the right.

And no network is perfectly fair and balanced.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
It doesn't matter how appropriate the slogan may be. In the legal sense, if a phrase or slogan is trademarked, then it's basically yours.

I think the underlying assumption is that in using the slogan, you are promoting it, creating a market for it, if you will. Your money went into promoting it, so others shouldn't profit from it. That's the whole point behind trademarks.

They have a point when they say Franken is trying to use their slogan to sell his book. The fact that it is sarcasm, or at least irony that motivaes him probably plays into it.

J

PS Fox is fair and balanced, provided it is mixed with equal parts MSNBC.

 

[superslug]

I agree with the fact that no network is fair and balanced, but at least some of the other 'networks' actually bother hiring journalists.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Plexus
And no network is perfectly fair and balanced.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Yago
A general problems with trademarks is, in my opinion, what if you copyright words like "black", "white", "sun" and so on. Build up a marketname -> sun, the freshmaker ? Should that be possible ? Then, when someone is making a band called "the sun", suing them for copyright infringement ?

I remember hearing about a situation where someone tried to copyright the phrase 'Class of 2003' (or whatever year it was). In doing that they planned to make tons of money off of the companies that normally made things for when people graduated from school and such. I don't remember if it actually happened nor what the result was, but, yes, it certainly seems that it can be abused to a degree.

I'm not sure if there are some guidelines such as not being able to 'claim' commom words or something like that. I never got into that level of detail in my Business Law classes (or just don't remember it).

 

[jack merchant]

I would be very surprised if Fox's claim was upheld - if it were, no-one would be allowed to call themselves 'fair' or 'balanced' ever again without paying Fox for the privilege. In my understanding of copyright law, most labels aren't even accepted as copyrights if they are too generic to be linked to any particular product - it would be like Wheaties trademarking the phrase 'wholesome' and suing anyone who used it too.

(or rather, IIRC you can copyright such a phrase but the copyright subsequently won't stand up in court )

 

[Xen]

This reminds of when I herd that a guy in Australia patented the wheel to show how bad the countries patent system was... the same sort of thing happend in the US when a former teacher of a freind of mine, when he lived in Cali land, patented the wheel barrow- hes got a nice sum of money behind him now-a-days i hear...

 

[The Yankee]

I never saw a trademark symbol next to "Fair and Balanced" (though I did notice the puke stain I left right next to it). Besides, the winner in all this is Franken....because now his book is a hot seller, even before it's out.

Besides, if there was a problem with his titles, Rush Limbaugh should have sued for "big fat idiot."

 

[The Yankee]

From CNN.com:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Humorist Al Franken fought back against Fox News Network Tuesday over a lawsuit it filed claiming he infringed on its "fair and balanced" trademark by using the phrase on the cover of his upcoming book.

"From everything I know about law regarding satire, I'm not worried," liberal satirist Franken said in a statement issued by publishers Penguin Group.

Franken questioned the way he was described by the network, part of the News Corp group, in the 17-page suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Friday and made public on Monday.

"As far as the personal attacks go, when I read 'intoxicated or deranged' and 'shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator.

"And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word 'funny.' So when Fox calls me 'unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit," he said.

Fox is seeking an injunction against use of the phrase in connection with Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," due to be published next month. At the bottom of the planned cover is the tag line "a fair and balanced look at the right."

Fox said in the suit that Franken flew into a rage near a table of Fox News personalities at a press correspondents' dinner in April and acted "either intoxicated or deranged."

It said Franken has become "increasingly unfunny."

"Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable," the suit said.

Fox claims it registered the phrase "fair and balanced" in 1997 and that it "was created as a specific alternative to what its founders perceived as a liberal bias in the American media."

Franken worked as a comedy writer in the 1970s and has appeared frequently on "Saturday Night Live."

Looks like Franken's in good spirits. I really hope he does countersue on the word "funny." It would be very interesting to watch. Even though I don't watch Fox News (because when I did, their slant and "spin" was so obvious, I couldn't even find it funny), I'm sick of hearing about how great it is (at least from those "ditto"-heads who think Limbaugh and Fox News are gospel). Come on, Franken! Countersue and win some money! It's already doing great things to sales.

 

[Quasar1011]

Heck no, Fox is unbalanced! They have Laurie Dhue, Edie Hill, all those hot blondes, where are the hot brunettes?!

 

[JonathanValjean]

No. Although I think it's nice to have a newschannel for conservatives, somewhat offsetting the free liberal press, it is NOT fair and balanced. FOXNews is basically a cheerleader for right-wingers, and I'm sure that they would gladly tell you so.

 

[jack merchant]

I don't know what to make of it precisely, but here is an explainer of when phrases can be trademarked.

If it stands up though, tt would then seem that Fox describes Franken as 'unfunny' because in that case he would not be protected by laws on satire - it'll be interesting to see whether any court is going to be able to rule on the definition of funny !

 

[Maj]

Their journalism is of fair quality which helps keep their books balanced. That's about as much honesty as I can dredge from that slogan.

What bothers me is FOX must have enough confidence in its base audience's stupidity and/or ignorance to throw up that slogan. A lot of people see through its transparency ... but a lot of people must not ... or FOX needs to make some changes in its marketing department.

 

[stalin006]

i heard in the daily show taht FOX is suying some guy because he would use the line "fair and balanced" in his book cover......so if now we cant use it, its a definite no

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by JonathanValjean
No. Although I think it's nice to have a newschannel for conservatives, somewhat offsetting the free liberal press, it is NOT fair and balanced. FOXNews is basically a cheerleader for right-wingers, and I'm sure that they would gladly tell you so.

Actually I think you would be surprised. IMO Fox believes that they are exactly what they claim, ie fair and balanced. They are the only network that consistently tries to have the same number of opinions from both sides of the aisle. While the selection is skewed a bit, they are a lot closer to "balanced" than any other network.

As to fair, wellll... Suffice to say they try. If someone could prove to them that they were giving UNfair coverage to a subject for political reasons, they would probably change the programming. Good luck with the argument though.

J

 

[bobgote]

From the article
In the lawsuit, Fox said the network was created "as a specific alternative to what its founders perceived as a liberal bias in the American media."

I dunno. is this supposed to be funny or something? "A liberal bias in the American media" Either I misunderstand the term 'liberal' or there is a bunch of raving lunatics at fox....

Anyway, they shouldn't be able to be sued, it's ludicrous. "fair and balanced" is a commonly used phrase, and it shouldn't be able to be snatched by one 'news' service and made a trademark only they can use.

and they know it won't confuse anyone, no fox viewers are going to buy something like that. i'd doubt they could read anyway.

and as said previously, they're only publicising the book more, something that may have slipped through the cracks is now going to be big news.

oh yeah and lol @ this too:

"The attempt to keep the public from reading Franken's message is un-American and runs contrary to everything this country stands for."

firstly lol @ use of the phrase "un-American". surely that's stale as anything by now, and also that it's allegedly "contrary to every thing the country stands for"

yeah, i guess one bias does counteract the other