Yellow Journalism – An Accepted Practice to Promote Harmful Agendas

Yellow Journalism or sensationalism, they’re both the same. How about yellow as in cowardly? I found one example of the word yellow used in a sentence:

Yellow shouts louder and increasingly, it’s the color of choice for the driver who wants to make a statement

Yellow journalism is a spineless way of exploiting, distorting or exaggerating mostly gossip (I won’t call it news) to create sensations of shock; and attract readers aiming to boost circulation of stories that are NOT newsworthy.

These journalists seek out what they deem as sensational stories because they’re too indolent to explore the history of the report; or they aren’t honest enough to acquire the story first hand, from the source. Yet, their aim is to make a loud statement. What’s so alarming about gossip or tabloid junk or a report magnified beyond the limit of truth? There is such a thing as making a loud statement using a lie, but an even larger statement can be made with the truth if it’s presented in good taste or not overstated.

Truth runs marathons; Lies runs sprints. “Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons. The truth will win this marathon in court”, in the words of Michael Jackson.

Promoting truth is a marathon effort in itself. In many instances truth becomes or is a greater than normal, extensive and exhausting mission; as in the case of Michael Jackson’s 2005 accusations of molestation. Michael Jackson was correct in his statement that the truth would win that particular marathon in court. However, because many “Yellow Journalist” desired to keep him under a “false light” an attempt to continue the marathon effort was exploited. False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.    False Light

In the case of the deceased person truth run sprints because the truth has a brief life-span while lies last much longer. There are not many who care to challenge the lies because truth doesn’t boost ratings or produce wealth or fame. The accepted form of journalism, especially in America, is to exploit and distort. Tabloid addicts seem to approve of this type of journalism because it satisfies the shock therapy they crave by providing them that sudden or violet disturbance of the mind, emotions or their sensibilities.  

Since many people are under the assumption that the reputations of the dead can’t be hurt we have become comfortable with that analogy; and so we continue to promote the agendas of yellow journalists and odious citizens or groups who have become addicted to these shock tactics. How many of us thought it was newsworthy to view the deathbed/morgue photos of Michael Jackson during the televised trial of Conrad Murray or the death photo of Whitney Houston in her casket and, published by the National Enquirer? Of course the National Enquirer has kicked it up another notch and posted Michael Jackson’s morgue photo on the front cover of their latest  issue and enjoy using it as their profile picture on twitter.  I, personally, consider it to be disrespectful to the preservation of Mr. Jackson’s and Ms. Houston’s memory, hurtful to their children, parents, siblings, other family members, friends and yes, once again,  their fans.

Yet we have another final indignity for Ms. Houston, especially after her family made an enormous effort to keep the viewing of her remains private. Whitney Houston’s Casket Photo on Front Page of NE

Another internet media source titles it “Whitney Houston’s open casket photo on tabloid cover”, Open Casket Photo of Whitney Houston

Should we blame the tabloid news outlet for publishing the photo of Ms. Houston or the person that sold the photo to the tabloid outlet? I think blames lies with both parties. They were both gluttonous for financial gain and guilty of exploitation.

We ALL have an agenda, even Cadeflaw and our fixed and final mission has NOT changed. The deceased are not here to defend themselves. We have become their voice. We will continue to call for a law that will hold people accountable for their appalling actions toward the deceased.  

Free Speech ceases to be free when it is used to exploit, distort and defame. You can join us to make this law a reality or you can pretend you don’t see the tragedy in this accepted practice to promote hate by covering it up with beautiful photos and videos. However, beautiful the photos and videos of victims like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and others they won’t stop people with wicked minds; remember they know how to create photos and videos too. In fact, some of them use these death photos as their profile pictures on many internet sites.

How long will we stay divided between two opinions or will we stand up for what’s right? How long will we accept Yellow Journalism – An Accepted Practice to Promote Harmful Agendas?

Help protect and preserve the legacy of the deceased. Don’t allow people to trample on their memories.

AdLLaw Global Petition

 Cadeflaw Global Petition  – Petition Closed

Cadeflaw CA Petition – Petition Closed

“The life of the dead lies in the memory of the living.”

 

We have free speech for everyone who has nothing to say, but if you have an opinion, then speak at your own peril.

~Air Force Colonel, Morris Davis~

 

Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies by W. Joseph Campbell

 

“What is Cadeflaw and How Can YOU Help”

Imagine that despite your hard work, dedication and good reputation; suddenly stories emerge, skewing your character.

The problem? You are deceased and you can’t do a thing about it, and neither can your family. Your good name, legacy and reputation may not stand, and there is no law to protect you from it; no legal recourse for your family. All that you once stood for could be shattered by anyone who decides to defame your name. The contributions you made could be discredited, the legacy you left, crushed.

Impossible, you say? Not so. This is reality as it stands right now in our society.

We all deserve a legacy that is truth, and that cannot be challenged with lies and hearsay after we are gone. Our legacy is how we will be remembered and deserves due respect.

Having to deal with incorrect and defaming content aimed against their loved ones who are deceased, while at the same time dealing with personal grief from their loss, can become unbearable.

We need your help to bring about this necessary change to protect each person’s legacy, living or deceased, and each of you can take positive action to help.

Our mission at Cadeflaw is to protect and preserve, publicly, the legacy of those deceased, as well as proposing that all states and countries having defamation/slander civil codes, change the law to include defamation of both a natural person, whether living or deceased, as unlawful.

A draft for the bill to have this law changed has been written by the California Legislative Counsel and now our job is to convince a California Legislator to introduce it to the Senate.

The civil rights of the deceased are being violated because of this abuse and their families are left to deal with the anguish.

WE NEED THE PUBLIC WORLDWIDE TO:

*Sign our global online petition:Cadeflaw Global Online Petition

*Follow our WordPress blog: Cadeflaw WordPress

*Share The Information featured here as well as on our blog with everyone you know

*Send letters to CA Legislators at the links below:
CA Senators
CA Assemblymembers

*Donate to our cause: Administrative/Advertising Expenses
Donate Here (donations for Butterflies and Cadeflaw)

Donate: PayPal account at info@cadeflaw.com

CA RESIDENTS PETITION
Cadeflaw’s CA Residents Change.Org Petition

Further information about our initiative and the inspiration behind Cadeflaw:

Freedom of Speech is many times used as a smoke screen by journalists as well as the public, as a way to promote lies, hatred, and false information, and in an attempt to destroy for entertainment and/or profit.

This tactic used by some journalists allows public slander of the character of those in the public eye, including celebrities, using all forms of media and tabloids, all under the protected guise of “freedom of speech”. This has carried over into the mainstream public realm as well with the proliferation of social media and social media bullying.

However, the Freedom of Speech Amendment means something else, entirely. Libel, defamation of character and slander is not included in the Freedom of Speech Amendment.

Stating something that is false as a fact, with the intention of harming another person and/or damaging their reputation is NOT Freedom of Speech and does not fall under this amendment, though that is commonly misunderstood.

This abuse under the guise of freedom of speech can include not only professional publications, but slander or libel that comes in the form of personal harassment either in person, online or via other means.

Perhaps one of the most prominent and public examples of this has been Michael Jackson. While he endured slander and libel while alive (and did take legal action in some of the cases), we have seen this slander and libel grow to incredible proportions after his death, leaving his loved ones to deal with the aftermath, and convincing a public to believe false information that threatens to further affect the legacy he left. In fact, this has been the inspiration for the passing of this bill.

Currently, there is no law to protect the deceased from being defamed. This not only happens to celebrities, but could happen to any one of us.

For further information on slander and libel and Freedom of Speech, you can visit:

What Does Free Speech Mean?

First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (1791)

Our Mission to Help Children:

In addition, Cadeflaw has set a goal of assisting the many children in the United States and abroad, who do not have food, shelter, clothing or other essential needs because they live in or near the poverty level. Our goal is to make a positive difference in these children’s lives by giving monthly financial donations towards the needs of children, on a global scale.

We give donations every month to organizations that we sponsor. These organizations include The Butterfly Project, U.S. Fund for Unicef, New Light Christian Ministries of Pakistan, MJ Fans for Charity (The Dove Trust Cost Page), MJL Everland Liberia Project, Life For The World (Hope and Healing to Haiti) and the Believe Foundation.

More information can be found, and donations sent if desired, at the following link:

https://cadeflaw.wordpress.com/cadeflaw-gary-in-butterfly-project/other-outreach-projects/

Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates (CADEFLAW Advocates)

 

HIDING UNDER THE CLOAK OF FREE SPEECH TO FLING (MUD) LIBEL AND SLANDER

First, let me say that I am not an attorney (at least, not yet). I do not pretend to be one. Thus, I offer no legal advice.

However, I resist being led by the nose. I continually make concerted efforts to educate myself on matters of private and public concern.

Second, I support the letter and spirit of free-speech as in the First Amendment. And, I have had cause to strongly argue against attempts to stifle free speech by pretentious do-gooders. However, no one should be allowed to hide under the cloak of free speech to fling mud wantonly at law-abiding U. S. citizens and nationals. One of the subsisting tenets of the American rule of law, as I understand it, is that criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and civil innocent until proven liable. What does not cease to amaze some of us is how even some folks with law degrees argue publicly that, regardless of a subsisting ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction to the contrary, certain citizens are still guilty (or liable) in their own eyes. If that is not recklessness to the nth power, I wonder what is.

One citizen’s right stops where the right of another begins. The same judicature that protects free speech for Americans also protects (and justifiably so) Americans against defamation or slander. Legally, defamation and slander are identical. They harm plaintiff. The difference is that slander is oral and defamation is written (Black’s Law Dictionary, West, 2011).

The issue in the post-mortem case of Michael Jackson (and other similar instances) is whether or not a decedent has any vestigial rights to be protected against defamation or slander. Two perspectives; 1) from the position of what the law is; and 2) from the position of what the law should be. The position of what the law is should be determined by the court system (the judiciary) up to the Supreme Court. The position of what the law should be is a matter for us (“we, the people”) acting through our elected representatives who are expected to responsibly legislate for the people’s yearnings and aspirations.

By proxy (through decedents’ estates), the dead have obligation to pay tax to the U. S. government. By proxy, the dead can sue or be sued. Foreseeably, the estate of the dead may suffer grave damages (no pun intended) from unchecked defamatory acts of others against the dead. The dead are not invariably without survivors, heirs, descendants, assignees and others whose constitutionally protected rights may be breached by how the dead are treated, mistreated, maltreated or ignored.

If the dead continue to carry obligations to the Union, transcending their physicality, the minimum the Union is sensibly and judicially expected to do in return is protect certain rights for the dead and their survivors. 48 states in the Union and 42 senators already recognize the need for this kind of protection, as they demonstrated in the recent, odious desecration of a service man whose only ‘crime’ was making the ultimate sacrifice for his beloved America.

The judiciary, up to the U. S. Supreme Court, would be justified to hold that the law could be an wisenheimer, it is still the law until it is changed. The law must be enforced as is. No problem. What is conveniently ignored is that construction (interpretation) of the law is no exact science; one reason two equally competent Supreme Court Justices might conclude differently on the same case file.

Do judges always recuse themselves from cases in which they may have potential grounds for biasing their rulings? Not really. Is it the law that is the wisenheimer in such cases? No. The law may indeed be a wisenheimer. As laymen, we get that. What we do not get, as responsible lay-citizens, is the judicial or common sense in continuing to be governed by a wisenheimer or an army of them.

The smart choice is for Americans to instigate their elected representatives to legislate wisenheimer-like laws off the books. We can also do more to help our honorable Justices remain honorable in the precedents they set or omit to set. We do not want activist judges operating like politicians-in-drag. Simultaneously, we do not need judges who will shy away from setting legal precedents necessary for strengthening delivery of justice as envisaged by framers of the piece of legislation at issue.

This is the rationale for all men and women of goodwill to rally round efforts to institute and protect the rights of the dead, Michael Jackson and all. Even if for no other reason, do it for selfish ends. Yes, selfish ends! Your own ends! Just in case you forgot for a moment, you too will be dead one day, right? As you lay your bed, you lie on it. If you do not lay your bed now, who knows whether you will even have a bed left to lay when the time comes.

Concerned Anonymous Contributor to Cadeflaw Initiative

Submitted: March 17, 2011

“People don’t care how much you know, they want to know how much you care.”

California Residents ONLY

Global Cadeflaw Change.org Petition

Leave Michael Jackson and the other DECEASED alone. 

 

CadeFlaw Initiative: The Perceptions, Interpretations & Misconceptions

 “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” 

~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~

One hurdle to any Anti-Defamation Law for the deceased is the public’s perception or the misconception of its intent.  There is a large misunderstanding about what this law can and cannot do, and who it is for.   A misunderstood interpretation is fueled by writers and those who profit in some manner from their writing.

The number one misperception is:  “Only celebrities and politicians suffer at the hands of popular papers.” (1)

This statement implies persons like you and I have nothing to worry about and therefore need not be concerned or support CadeFlaw.  This is false to the tenth degree.

You only have look to most “news” or “entertainment news” outlets to find a story on a non-famous person who is suffering at the hands of the popular press and social media.    You only have to watch video clips where family, friends or associates are made to dodge the intrusive and sometime dangerously harassing conduct.

The legacy of the deceased is not according to or measured by the amount of fame.  Each of us is a Ruler within our lives.  For example, if a false and unsupported accusation such as theft is alleged, the legacy of the deceased, through their reputation, is damaged.   This damaged reputation may lessen revenue or potential revenue which would support those left behind.   Defamation due to the false claims against the decedent may cause family to be subjected to bias judgments of their character.  It may bring about a level of scrutiny in their personal life that is unjust and unwarranted.

This is not the first time in recent history an attempt to have a defamation of the deceased law passed.  In 1989, Lisa Brown writes of “Dead but Not Forgotten: Proposals for Imposing Liability for Defamation of the Dead”.

In the early 1980s the New York Senate passed a bill which gave cause of action for defamation of the deceased. The bill was moved to the Assembly calendar where it would be left to languish and die.

“Libel-the-dead laws have recently been proposed in state legislatures; in New York, one such bill passed the State Senate and was defeated only when it was shown that the bill would immediately help relatives of Mafia biggies and crooked politicians.” (2) **

The focus is kept on the famous or infamous.  We already have an “us” and “them” perception when it comes to people in the public eye.  We tend not to see them truly as we are.  We do not always see they can be hurt or their loved ones can be hurt by defamation.

Even in the reporting of this story the NY Times, the author left out one important fact.  It was the Lobbyists who had this bill killed, not the public’s fear over whitewashed Mafia and crooked politicians. 

“The bill eventually died on the assembly calendar under the pressure of aggressive lobbying by New York’s formidable communications industry, including publications such as Time magazine”.  (3)

“Certainly it’s unfair and painful to the families of the celebrated dead when authors profit from unproven, sensational charges. But the libel solution is worse than the problem; the battle about who was a Nazi or a Communist, or whether Aaron Burr ”murdered” Alexander Hamilton, belongs in the history books, not in the courts. “

“Needed is a public-opinion rallying point for descendants of the defamed dead to write record-straightening letters to editors, to hold pro-privacy meetings, to denounce unauthorized biographers, not to hire lawyers to hush up scandal or snatch away some imaginative writer’s royalties.” (4)

What I get may be different from what you get from this story.  I see an attempt to trivialize the proposed initiative.   The article speaks of people who have been dead long enough most readers under 35 may know nothing of them, may not feel or be aware of their impact in their lives.  There is a careless attitude with the deceased and an invitation to do the same or be labeled a “fussy”  non-thinking irrational person.

That threatened label is a key selling point to suspending support to CadeFlaw or any like initiative.  We all wish to be seen as “sharp”, in the know and a part of the now.   After all, fussy dinosaurs will be afforded the same lack of social merit as the dead we defend.

Here is a piece of deliberately distorted information which became a worldwide perception.

Do you know or remember the “famous” McDonald’s Coffee lawsuit?   Did you judge the Plaintiff or the jury harshly?   I did, because the mainstream media, TV show hosts, comedians and even political figures “taught” me their version of the events.   A version which was very different from the real events.

The woman in the story was a live Plaintiff at the time of the suit, she is now deceased.   Many of the more inhumane jokes and comments have been removed, not through contrition, but cowardice.

If you did not know the true events, how did you come about your understanding?   It was during this time a phrase would come into popular use.  “Frivolous Lawsuits”.

The use “frivolous lawsuits”, “everyone will jump on the jackpot”, and “violating free speech” are some of most effective methods of slowing down participation in an initiative such as CadeFlaw, but there is a misconception.  Pay attention to what an attorney has to say about going to court:  @ 2:06 minutes.

We have only the printed and spoken word to inform us of daily occurrences.  These are the tools by which we stay in touch, how we learn.  To do a good job and make reasonable decisions, one needs sound and reliable tools. 

Sources: 

(1)    Debunking Ten Myths About Press Abuse

(2) (4)   Opinion/Essay Libeling The Dead

(3)   ** Note:  LexisNexis Group computer-assisted legal research services.   LexisNexis is a paid service. Dead but Not Forgotten: Proposals for Imposing Liability for Defamation of the Dead

Submitted by:   S. Kendrick – a.k.a. Dial Dancer