CBS is being sued for defamation after a TV special on JonBenét Ramsey argued that her brother, Burke Ramsey, was responsible for her death.

Burke has requested $750 million from the network in his lawsuit, in response to the airing of the TV special “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey,” which investigated the murder of six-year-old child beauty pageant star JonBenét on the 20-year anniversary of her death. The case remains an unsolved mystery, but the CBS special that aired in September attempted to cash in on the current popularity of “true crime” entertainment by using experts such as detectives and forensic pathologists to theorize on possible causes and culprits. It was accused by some critics of being “exploitative” and a re-hashing of old material.

The program included an “experiment” conducted to support the theory that Burke could have committed the murder at age nine. The lawsuit accused the show of conducting a “sham investigation,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While DNA testing conducted by the then-district attorney exonerated the Ramsey family in 2008, the current district attorney has allegedly re-ordered DNA tests and claimed that the exoneration was premature. While Burke was largely kept out of the public eye following the death of his sister, he gave an interview to Dr. Phil earlier this year where he continued to deny any involvement in the murder.

In October, Burke filed a lawsuit for $150 million against Dr. Werner Spitz, the forensic pathologist who appeared in the program, for comments he had made saying he was “sure” that it was Burke who committed the crime. Spitz responded earlier this month, saying that the comments were simply “speculation” and that he expressed his opinion under his First Amendment rights.

While it is unclear if we will ever find out the truth of what happened to JonBenét, the CBS special, as well as Burke’s emergence into the public eye, have reinvigorated interest into one of the most infamous unsolved murder mysteries of this era.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Brother of JonBenét Ramsey Files Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS appeared first on Law Street.

It appears that Stephen Colbert doesn’t own “Stephen Colbert.” Rather, Colbert, the host of CBS’s “The Late Show,” doesn’t own the rights to the character he developed and played for almost 20 years on Comedy Central.

On Wednesday, Colbert announced on his show that the “Stephen Colbert” character from “The Colbert Report” is the intellectual property of Viacom, Comedy Central’s parent company, and would “never be seen again.” In response to disappointed “boos” by the audience, he responded, “I understand, but what can I do? The lawyers have spoken. I cannot reasonably argue I own my face or name.”

Last week, he brought back his former alternate persona in order to make sense of the Trump nomination, using one of his signature bits called “The Word.”

After the show aired, however, “corporate lawyers” from Colbert’s former network allegedly reached out to claim their IP over the character. “Stephen Colbert,” the faux-conservative newsman, was a feature on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” before receiving his own show on the network in 2005. Last year, Colbert retired the character after taking over for David Letterman on CBS.

While this may be sad news for the “Colbert Nation,” don’t fret just yet: Colbert may have found a suitable alternative. After announcing the end of “Stephen Colbert,” he introduced “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin, “Stephen Colbert,” who may be a worthy replacement. He also introduced his new segment “WERD,” which bears only a slight resemblance to “The Word.”

So far, there is no news on whether Viacom’s legal team has fired back to challenge the eerie similarities between the new “Colbert” and his retired cousin.

The Hollywood Reporter notes the legal complexities surrounding this case, and explains why “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin” may avoid copyright infringement claims and may actually be able to qualify for its own copyright. However, the article notes that if the new character earns a separate copyright, it would probably be owned by CBS rather than Colbert himself. So, let’s hope that Colbert stays where he is, otherwise, he may need to pull out another extended family member if he wants his satirical alter-ego to live on.

While Colbert himself may have abandoned his Comedy Central show last year, it appears he hasn’t let go of the character that millions have grown to love.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Stephen Colbert Doesn’t Own His “Colbert Report” Character appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Helga from Hey Arnold!? The blonde-haired tyrannical bully who constantly picked on Arnold? She used to tease him endlessly, calling him names in front of his friends. Meanwhile, she had his photo in her locket, and a shrine of all things Arnold hidden in her room.

That’s a pretty good comparison to Donald Trump’s relationship with the media. He constantly derails the media for “bias” and “lying,” all the while feeding off of the coverage they give him. The latest clash in Trump’s war on free press (it’s like the war on Christmas, but real) concerns a satirical front page published by the Boston Globe. The page is from a future issue, dated April 9th, 2017, featuring the headline “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN.” The accompanying article makes mention of Attorney General Chris Christie, and a White House press blacklist including Megyn Kelly. The fake stories were accompanied by a scathing op-ed from the editorial board.

Trump refused to take the incendiary publication lying down, responding in typical stream-of-consciousness fashion:

How about that stupid Boston Globe, it’s worthless, sold for a dollar. Did you see that story? The whole front page — they made up a story, they pretended Trump is the president, and they made up the whole front page, it’s a make-believe story, which is really no different from the whole paper — I mean, the whole thing is made up. And I think they’re having a big backlash on that one.

Doubling down on the Globe’s decision, Kathleen Kingsbury, deputy managing editor of the editorial page, said “we delivered copies of the editorial to his campaign because we wanted to make sure he saw what we wrote.”

According to the New York Times’ fantastic analysis of Donald Trump’s Twitter presence, Trump has insulted just about every news outlet under the sun, from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to CNN and Huffington Post. He’ll skewer mainstream media, swatting down Vanity Fair, Univision, and The View with derisive tweets. Almost no large news corporation is saved from Trump’s ire.

And yet the press still loves to cover him. CBS CEO Les Moonves (which is a man’s name and title as well as a tongue-twister), told The Hollywood Reporter, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

And how could The Donald not love the attention? The New York Times estimated that the news media had given Trump the equivalent of $1.9 billion in free publicity. I doubt that Trump actually has a shrine in one of his many homes with effigies of Megyn Kelly and Anderson Cooper lit by luxury candles, but I’m pretty sure that he secretly appreciates the hateful words being said about him–after all, the Trump family motto is: There’s No Such Thing As Bad Press.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Globe Hates Trump, Trump Hates The Globe appeared first on Law Street.

The three remaining Democratic candidates–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Bernie Sanders–debated this Saturday night in Des Moines, Iowa. From entertaining observations to shots at the Republican candidates, check out some the best Twitter reactions to the second Democratic debate below:

A Shot at Ben Carson Part 1

Very angry no one had the courage to address Egyptian pyramid grain storage. Good night. #DemDebate

— Bill Corbett (@BillCorbett) November 15, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Tweets from the Second Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday night, the three remaining Democratic candidates took to the stage for the second Democratic debate of the primary season. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Governor Martin O’Malley, and Senator Bernie Sanders appeared at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. In light of Friday night’s horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, France, the debate was shifted to focus on national security, terrorism, and foreign affairs. It was an interesting evening–in comparison to the Republican debates, which have ranged from 8-10 participants and have been full of skirmishes between the candidates–it was congenial and at times even boring. But the big takeaway is that regardless of debate performances, it probably didn’t make a difference in Senator Bernie Sander’s quest to unseat frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with a disclaimer: the Democratic field is down to three candidates–two of whom are arguably in contention (Sanders and Clinton) and one who, barring a miracle, is fundamentally not (O’Malley). So let’s get O’Malley out of the way now–he has no shot and while he was applauded for some strong answers Saturday night, his poll numbers are so low that even a bump wouldn’t matter much at this point. It’s way more interesting to discuss the overall showdown between Clinton and Sanders, and consider if the debate performances will benefit one or the other.

Sanders was in trouble from the start just based on the timing of the debate itself. Saturday night at 9 PM isn’t exactly a great time for a debate, particularly for the sought-after contingent of young voters. This is particularly a concern for Sanders, who has become an attractive candidate for millennials. According to a poll conducted in mid-October, among those born between 1985-1997, Bernie Sanders is at 54 percent. Hillary Clinton is at a meager 26 percent. In contrast, Clinton dominates among older voters, at 48 percent.

The debate drew in only 8.5 million viewers. While for a political event on a Saturday night that’s pretty good, it’s not good enough. It was the lowest of any of the primary debates so far, including the first Democratic one, and the four Republican debates. Twenty-four million people watched the first Republican debate; that’s almost three times as many people who tuned into Saturday night’s showdown. While the debate was technically the most watched program in its time slot, ABC’s college football game between Oklahoma and Baylor was the top program for the 18-49 age demographic. Essentially, more older people watched the Democratic debate than young people. While that’s not surprising, it is deeply problematic for Bernie Sanders, who needs to keep getting his message in front of the young people he’s proven it resonates for. To be fair, online streaming data isn’t immediately available, and that’s how I, as well as probably a bunch of other young people watched the debate. If online streaming data indicates that a big chunk of millennials watched the debate instead of doing other things on a Saturday night, I’ll stand corrected, but I’d be very, very surprised.

Multiple polls post-debate declared Clinton as the winner–and that’s just based on performance, which of course a subjective marker. But in terms of numbers, she probably won it too. Her base was more likely to watch Saturday night’s debate. If Sanders is going to have a shot at the nomination, and that’s a big “if,” he needs to continue to inspire young voters. While it’s not his fault that the debate was at a truly inconvenient time, Sanders is going to need to continue to seek out alternate ways to get his message across.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Second Democratic Debate was a Loss for Bernie Sanders appeared first on Law Street.

The media world is still reeling from Brian Williams’ lies–or severe misremembering, at best–about his helicopter being shot down by Iraqi forces 12 years ago. But round two with Bill O’Reilly has turned out a bit differently. It’s become clear that the Fox News host wasn’t in the thick of the war zone while covering the 1982 Falklands conflict as he’s boasted several times. In fact, he was over a thousand miles away from the heart of the action, sources told Mother Jones.

And O’Reilly, whose criticism of Williams lacked his usual bluster, hasn’t taken this sitting down.

After Mother Jones published its skepticism of O’Reilly’s representation as a “combat-hardened reporter,” O’Reilly immediately hit back, calling the reporters lying “left-wing” “guttersnipes.” When New York Times reporters questioned him soon after, he outright threatened them.

“I am coming after you with everything I have,” O’Reilly told The New York Times over the phone. “You can take it as a threat.”

For years, O’Reilly has backed up his reporting to viewers, readers, and other journalists with claims of reporting for CBS in active war zones in Argentina’s Falkland Islands, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. He particularly emphasized surviving combat situations and rescuing his photographer during the U.K.’s war with Argentina.

“I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete,” O’Reilly said in 2013. “And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.”

But reporters and producers from CBS News told Mother Jones that no American correspondent reached the Falklands. Instead, they said, O’Reilly was in Buenos Aires, over a thousand miles from combat. The riots in Buenos Aires were hardly the deadly affair O’Reilly depicted.

“It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the word that I know,” retired CBS correspondent told CNN. O’Reilly, he said, “is trying to build it up into a more frightening and deadly situation than it was.”

So far seven former colleagues from CBS have spoken out against O’Reilly’s exaggerated version of events and claims that “many people were killed” in the riots. Newspaper archives from Argentina at the time don’t report any fatalities in Buenos Aires either, according to the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple.

What’s more, former colleagues doubt his photographer was even injured. “Nobody remembers this happening. If somebody got hurt, we all would have known,” a CBS news cameraman who was in Buenos Aires then told CNN.

After investigations into Brian Williams’ work began, NBC suspended its celebrity anchor without pay for six months. But even as allegations of further fabrication arise–O’Reilly may have lied about hearing the suicide of someone involved in President Kennedy’s assassintion–Fox News has stood by its host and his version of events.

The kicker in all this? O’Reilly’s ratings have only risen, giving him his biggest audience since the Ferguson verdict came out.

Aysha Khan

Aysha Khan studies multi-platform journalism and Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Maryland. Contact Aysha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As More Questionable Reports Emerge, Bill O’Reilly’s Ratings Increase appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

In 2012, a new company called Aereo launched. It offered a revolutionary new way to watch TV. Essentially, Aereo provides subscribers with a small antenna about the size of a dime that receives TV signals. The dime is kept in a remote local area and then streams TV to any device in the house with Internet access such as a computer, tablet or smartphone. In addition, it’s possible to send the content to an actual TV if you have the correct cables or a streaming device such as Apple TV. Aereo also includes a DVR feature. All of this is extremely cheap–it costs about $1 a day, plus some DVR storage charges. Aereo began in New York City, and now includes Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, and Salt Lake City. They have plans to expand to most other major cities in coming years. Aereo mostly streams basic channels and public access–not cable. For some more background on the company from the Intellectual Property side, check this out. 

Aereo is a great solution at a time when more and more people, mainly young people, can access most of their TV needs online. Services like Netflix and Hulu+ are cheaper than a traditional cable plan. Itunes allows you buy a subscription to one show for a season, which is convenient when you only want one show on a given cable network. I don’t have a TV or cable package–people are always shocked when I tell them this, but a combination of Netflix, inviting myself to watch shows at friends’ houses, and other internet sources work just fine for me. Earlier this year, a tech reporter for HuffPost reviewed Aereo and was pretty happy with the convenience for a cheap price.

Almost as soon as Aereo started, it received ire from the largest broadcasting companies. ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are officially involved in lawsuits, while other networks, such as Univision, have voiced their support for their fellow networks. The case has gone through a few series of appeals, and as on Friday, the Supreme Court announced their decision to take the case. On every appeal, the courts have so far sided with Aero.

The legal argument made by the broadcasting companies boils down to the fact that they are not receiving compensation for Aereo’s services, the way they do from a company such as Verizon or a local provider. Aereo also doesn’t have a license to show any of this content. Paul Clement, a lawyer for the network stated the case raised issues in copyright law that, “profoundly affect, and potentially endanger, over-the-air-broadcast television.”

Aereo’s response is that they do not create public performances, which law prevents, but because they just send individual signals, that is not the case. They just access the signals that the TV channels have broadcasted, and that consumers have always had the right to use antennas to access TV. The court has sided with Aereo twice on that argument so far, but the start-up still encouraged the Supreme Court to take the case.

The case does have some interesting potentially implications. For example, if Aereo wins, some broadcasting companies may move towards subscription streaming (FOX has already threatened this), which would be costly and difficult.

The ultimate question at issue here is, as it seems to be so often these days, the intersection between law and technology–technology has clearly outpaced the law. But is that a bad thing? The Supreme Court will shed some light on that topic in coming months.

[ABC News]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Miguel Pires da Rosa via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TV Streaming Makes it to Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.