HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should it be against the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:57 PM

Should it be against the law for news networks to lie?


133 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
111 (83%)
No
19 (14%)
Undecided
1 (1%)
Other
2 (2%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

186 replies, 18332 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 186 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should it be against the law for news networks to lie? (Original post)
Jamaal510 Dec 2012 OP
slackmaster Dec 2012 #1
intheflow Dec 2012 #6
slackmaster Dec 2012 #12
brooklynite Dec 2012 #38
slackmaster Dec 2012 #57
intheflow Dec 2012 #59
slackmaster Dec 2012 #77
intheflow Dec 2012 #121
brooklynite Dec 2012 #96
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #106
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #112
closeupready Dec 2012 #2
pacalo Dec 2012 #9
left on green only Dec 2012 #32
brooklynite Dec 2012 #40
pacalo Dec 2012 #42
pacalo Dec 2012 #41
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #10
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #13
closeupready Dec 2012 #17
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #24
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #92
spanone Dec 2012 #101
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #51
closeupready Dec 2012 #53
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #64
closeupready Dec 2012 #73
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #78
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #94
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #98
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #116
MADem Dec 2012 #81
closeupready Dec 2012 #84
Turborama Dec 2012 #126
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #3
Spike89 Dec 2012 #33
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #95
texshelters Dec 2012 #107
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #4
Cleita Dec 2012 #5
unblock Dec 2012 #19
Cleita Dec 2012 #31
Enrique Dec 2012 #133
unblock Dec 2012 #7
Cleita Dec 2012 #11
unblock Dec 2012 #23
Cleita Dec 2012 #36
unblock Dec 2012 #48
Cleita Dec 2012 #65
Selatius Dec 2012 #117
unblock Dec 2012 #123
Cleita Dec 2012 #156
slackmaster Dec 2012 #16
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #165
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #20
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #60
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #167
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #180
unblock Dec 2012 #62
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74
unblock Dec 2012 #76
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #83
unblock Dec 2012 #86
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #148
unblock Dec 2012 #151
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #152
texshelters Dec 2012 #111
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #147
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #80
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #85
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #88
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #150
Codeine Dec 2012 #114
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #52
unblock Dec 2012 #67
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #54
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #105
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #164
madokie Dec 2012 #8
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #14
99Forever Dec 2012 #15
Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #18
Inkfreak Dec 2012 #22
immoderate Dec 2012 #30
Inkfreak Dec 2012 #21
riqster Dec 2012 #25
tosh Dec 2012 #26
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #27
slackmaster Dec 2012 #139
gollygee Dec 2012 #28
laserhaas Dec 2012 #89
laserhaas Dec 2012 #90
Deep13 Dec 2012 #29
Matariki Dec 2012 #34
brooklynite Dec 2012 #35
TeamPooka Dec 2012 #179
Whisp Dec 2012 #37
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #119
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #39
texshelters Dec 2012 #113
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43
99Forever Dec 2012 #44
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45
99Forever Dec 2012 #46
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #49
99Forever Dec 2012 #58
Cleita Dec 2012 #61
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #71
Cleita Dec 2012 #72
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #79
Cleita Dec 2012 #91
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #127
Cleita Dec 2012 #128
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #136
Cleita Dec 2012 #155
slackmaster Dec 2012 #141
Cleita Dec 2012 #47
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #50
Cleita Dec 2012 #56
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #108
zipplewrath Dec 2012 #55
99Forever Dec 2012 #63
tech3149 Dec 2012 #66
Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #171
PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #68
HowHasItComeToThis Dec 2012 #69
Cleita Dec 2012 #70
slackmaster Dec 2012 #75
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #82
Initech Dec 2012 #87
JVS Dec 2012 #93
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #97
eallen Dec 2012 #99
spanone Dec 2012 #100
Warpy Dec 2012 #102
texshelters Dec 2012 #103
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #104
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #109
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #110
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #157
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #181
Codeine Dec 2012 #115
slackmaster Dec 2012 #138
cali Dec 2012 #172
vrguy Dec 2012 #118
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #120
Cleita Dec 2012 #122
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #158
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #124
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #134
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #159
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #173
TransitJohn Dec 2012 #125
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #129
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #130
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #131
slackmaster Dec 2012 #137
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #132
JoeyT Dec 2012 #135
slackmaster Dec 2012 #140
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #142
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #149
Xyzse Dec 2012 #143
treestar Dec 2012 #144
cali Dec 2012 #145
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #146
cali Dec 2012 #168
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #177
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #160
cali Dec 2012 #169
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #175
jillan Dec 2012 #153
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #161
rock Dec 2012 #154
slackmaster Dec 2012 #162
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #174
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #182
Throd Dec 2012 #163
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #166
guardian Dec 2012 #170
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #176
slackmaster Dec 2012 #178
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #183
Riftaxe Dec 2012 #184
slackmaster Dec 2012 #185
slackmaster Dec 2012 #186

Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:58 PM

1. No. It's not always possible to determine an absolute, objective truth.

 

A law attempting to enforce some standard of truthfulness would create a slippery slope for freedom of speech and of the press.

Rec because there is no Unrec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:08 PM

6. But there should be standards to deal with that.

I also believe in some situations there is no ONE truth, reality unfolds in many shades of gray. However, I think what is being asked is, should news be required to report facts as they are known and understood? Should they be required to acknowledge opinion pieces as opinions rather than hard and fast truth? Should they be required not to lie outright, such as Fox commentators commonly do?

In as far as facts are/can be known, I think yes, the news should be required to report truth, and should correct itself or be held accountable for spreading false information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:15 PM

12. I fully agree with you on your "shoulds" but there is a big difference between self-enforced...

 

...journalistic standards, and using the force of law to shape speech and the press.

Mis-use of the press in efforts to shape public opinion goes back a long, long way, and somehow our nation has managed to surivive it.



And of course news outlets often make honest mistakes, or indulge in wishful thinking. What kind of penalty would the author of the OP have imposed on the Chicago Tribune for this boner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:08 PM

38. Consider the following two headlines...

"Black man shoots white mother of five"

"Homeowner defends house against burglar"

If the mother of five broke into the house of the Black man and he shot her defending his property, both headlines would be factually correct, AND both headlines could be used to skew the point of the story. What have you accomplished?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:50 PM

57. That's a great example. Even assurance of objective truth would not eliminate spin and bias.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:51 PM

59. I'm not saying journalism doesn't have a POV.

Of course it does - and must, since humans are reporting the news. However, if both your examples are true, then there's no problem. It's not lying. Reporting that a black man shot an unarmed, white mother of five and willfully neglecting to mention she was breaking into his house at the time - that would be lying.

Just as Fox "newscasters" saying Obama is a Socialist/Muslim/Kenyan/no birth certificate/not Christian is willful, outright lying. Death panels are a lie. That there's a War on Christmas is a lie. Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:16 PM

77. The items in your last paragraph are all perfectly acceptable forms of journalism...

 

...as long as they are presented as opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:25 PM

121. Which is what I said in my original post that started this sub-thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:15 PM

96. I think you would be hard-pressed to prove lying in any of these cases...

Socialist? A matter of political definition.

Muslim/Kenyan/No Birth Certificate/Not Christian. Point to a Fox News Host who said any of these. What they DID say was "some people believe" which is factually true, or they interviewed someone who did say it, in which case it's arguably "news".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:12 PM

106. "Being mistaken" is not synonymous with "lying."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:17 PM

112. Rather often treated that way when it benefits the accuser.

Kinda like "have a different opinion" is synonymous with "paid shill for the bad guys" among some DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:00 PM

2. Unequivocal yes. Alternatively, if that conflicts with the 1st amendment, then

there should be a certification authority, similar to the BBB, sanctioned by the government, with standards of accountability such that, if a Fourth Estate institution deliberately spreads misinformation, their certification is put at risk.

Open to other views. Just my personal opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:11 PM

9. ^This^.

The FCC sure isn't addressing it. Perhaps even the new consumer protection agency that Elizabeth Warren spearheaded into existence could hold them accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:51 PM

32. I think there used to be a strongly worded federal statute against lying by the media

But Ronnie Raygun dismembered it as part of his pander to the media that propagated the lie of his existence. It would be really welcome (at least on the part of this writer) if Elizabeth Warren was able to somehow re-establish something in federal law that brought the old standard of journalistic integrity back into being again. At least enough of a law to allow the prosecution of Faux News and others like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left on green only (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:11 PM

40. You are completely wrong...

There has NEVER been a statute against lying (see FIRST AMENDMENT). You are confusing this with the EQUAL TIME REQUIREMENTS which the FCC used to impose on broadcast media with respect to electoral candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:17 PM

42. Granted. That opened the door to unfair & unbalanced "news", imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left on green only (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:12 PM

41. Yes, indeed.

(Raygun's fingerprints -- that figures.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:11 PM

10. This I Like

You can say whatever you want, you just can't call yourself an uncredited news agency unless you meet the standards.

Besides, there are community standard laws that pass constituional muster now. That's why there are still words you really can't use on broadcast TV.

Same principle would apply here and your idea seems legally manageable.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:16 PM

13. Department of Truth...

 

Can't see how that could go wrong...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:25 PM

17. Hello? That's why I said, 'open to other views'.

As it is, all you offer is criticism.

You can say whatever you want, but if you are arguing that the status quo is an effective check on the three branches of our government, you're in the wrong thread.

If you think it's ineffective and have suggestions for improvement, make them.

Otherwise, I have no interest in bickering. Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:34 PM

24. What I am saying...

 

... is that the cure is infinitely worse than the disease.

Similar to capitalism... It ain't great for everyone but it's the best out of all available options

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:08 PM

92. That's the pat argument against controls. It's not black or white.

We could institute controls that wouldnt make the situation worse. I believe other countries have standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:38 PM

101. that's what courts do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:45 PM

51. And the government never lies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:47 PM

53. What does that have to do with anything?

What is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:54 PM

64. sanctioned by the government, your words...

I do believe that is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:05 PM

73. Maybe so. On the other hand, it seems to work

with commercial speech. So, there has to be a way to check lies and propaganda in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:16 PM

78. It works in commercial speech

because the government is not trying to sell you products.... And, how well does it really work? Think of all those "infomercials" that hawk pipe dreams to the gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:12 PM

94. That's always the one problem, who is the one with unequivocal truth. Often governments lie

horribly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:23 PM

98. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:35 PM

116. Hey.. my Schticky is awesome...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:20 PM

81. BBB? Better Business Bureau? Those guys are a bunch of charletans, too!

Pay to play with those clowns--I trust them as far as I can throw them...don't you remember this shit from two years ago?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843

The Better Business Bureau, one of the country's best known consumer watchdog groups, is being accused by business owners of running a "pay for play" scheme in which A plus ratings are awarded to those who pay membership fees, and F ratings used to punish those who don't.

To prove the point, a group of Los Angeles business owners paid $425 to the Better Business Bureau and were able to obtain an A minus grade for a non-existent company called Hamas, named after the Middle Eastern terror group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:29 PM

84. No, I didn't - thank you for the info.

I was not aware of this at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:50 PM

126. *Disinformation

Otherwise, fully agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:03 PM

3. I don't know about that but

media ownership is to concentrated. We should go back to the old anti-trust rules to prevent media monopoly to allow some more honest voices to get through.

Also oil and coal companies should not be allow to sponsor news shows. Just the same way as we don't let tobacco companies sponsor news shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:57 PM

33. Exactly!

The problem isn't bad news...the problem is too few sources of news. It would be infinitely more effective to break up the large media conglomerates than to try and start a commission of truthiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:15 PM

95. I really think too that breaking up media conglomerates would be a major step in

the right direction. I think all media now, for the most part, is currently held by only about 5 or 6 major conglomerates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:12 PM

107. Yep

I said the same in a later comment before I saw your comment. Also, media education in schools to teach people what verifiable information is, what lies are, what spin is, and so forth, is a must.

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:04 PM

4. I Do Sympathize With the Idea, Sir....

"They were going to say that we interfered with freedom of expression. That is a lie, and we could not allow them to print it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:04 PM

5. However, be ready for the backlash you will receive on this.

The Canadians actually do have a law that prevents news from deliberately lying or misleading on their stories. It seems to work out for them. I don't know why it wouldn't with us.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:29 PM

19. canadians don't have our republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:48 PM

31. So what does that have to do with making the news an honest broker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:50 PM

133. this article is perfect for this thread

it has the answers to every question I had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:10 PM

7. how on earth can opposition to freedom of speech be winning this poll???

fox news suck ass, to be sure, but which is worse:

republicans lying out their asses on fox news, or republicans in government shutting down everyone except fox news claiming they're the only ones telling the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

11. Because enough is enough.

The media is helping to destroy our democracy with their propaganda lies and biased coverage. Propaganda used to be frowned upon here in America. We always accused the Soviet Union of those practices and they were considered undemocratic. The Canadians have figured out what to do and it hasn't affected their freedom of speech one bit. And if any people are vocal in what they think, it's Canadians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:34 PM

23. maybe if we somehow made a law that only canadians could enforce this law it might work.

but if the had such a law, republicans would enforce it and you know that would be far worse than what we have now.

it would be really easy for them to spot one or two "lies" on du and shut us down, for instance.


i completely agree that the propaganda we have and that is tolerated is unacceptable, but putting a weapon like this into the hands of those who want to silence us completely is suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:02 PM

36. You are making no sense.

A good law is written so that it can be enforced the way it was intended and no Republican can change that unless they ignore it, like they do at times, but it's up to our Democrats to make them honor the laws. Canadians have conservatives too and some of them are worse than ours, but they are kept in line by other less crazy Canadians. Laissez faire whether in economics or other venues doesn't work. People will distort and corrupt anything if they are given the largesse to do it. Since our present day journalists don't want to observe the tenants of good journalism, it looks like we will have to pass laws to make them do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:39 PM

48. first, there's simply no way to legislate out propaganda. the best propaganda involves twisting

the truth, not outright lying. so the best case scenario under the law is that all actual lying stops, but then fox news simply switches to half-truths and such, or carefully inserts "in my opinion" before delivering any false statement. it's easy to make statements that are, strictly speaking, true, yet convey something that is largely false. in fact a lot of their crap is already in this category.

but then the worse problem is that republicans can appoint right-wing judges and get right-wing people in the fbi or fcc or wherever it would be and have them enforce these laws recklessly against the fair and left-leaning media and look the other way when it comes to fox news, e.g.

the result would be far worse than the problem we're trying to solve.


much better to try to solve the problem with creating a liberal media and to continue to bash fox news at every opportunity. eventually they will become thoroughly discredited and go away, or at least be more strongly balanced on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:55 PM

65. There is a way. The Canadians have found it. Also, the Brits make a serious and legal

distinction between their serious news organizations and their tabloids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:46 PM

117. Well, you know, we kind of tried the liberal media thing.

You think Current TV is ever going to get the same ratings as FOX News, for instance? They don't have the capital to push themselves into that level of competition with all the major corporate networks, and unless billionaires became liberals and started throwing the same kind of cash behind it that is behind FOX or CNN or NBC, it likely won't change. It's a reality Ted Turner found out the hard way; one of his greatest regrets was selling off CNN in the first place to Time Warner. He calls their coverage crap nowadays.

Also, look at the market for radio networks. Liberal radio networks have been tried. Right-wing stations still absolutely dominate the market here, and it isn't going to change any time soon because pushing pro-business messages that benefit the bottom line is going to be a lot more profitable to the average shareholder looking to invest in networks than networks that push a message that includes higher taxes on the rich (including large shareholders) and more regulation on the markets and in investments.

I'm not saying that I favor an anti-lying provision inserted into the First Amendment, but I think the responsibility rests with the individual to find out the truth. Finding independent media sources and examining studies from left-wing think tanks appears to be the best solution to the problem. You're likely not going to find studies that are peer reviewed coming out of the Heritage Foundation, but you might if you looked at entities like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or the Brookings Institute.

Throwing money trying to establish left-wing equivalents to FOX News and right-wing radio is, in my opinion, a really bad investment. You're outgunned and outnumbered there. You don't go toe-to-toe with a behemoth on the battlefield and expect to win. You need to fight it like a guerrilla war instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:40 PM

123. well the broad problems are an excess of corporate influence and wealth concentration

and these can and should be addressed, but not with a restraint on speech.

the left needs a way to exert power. once we had strong unions for this, but they've been reduced to near rubble.
if we can find a way to generate powerful boycotts and mass strikes or such, then we can fight back.

personally, i think some sort of internet-based left-oriented buyers' club should be workable, but time will tell.

all we really need is an effective way to broadcast our view. a network of unions and/or buyers' clubs and/or political websites, i don't know. but big money isn't a clear necessity. what is necessary is a way to exert power. right now we don't have much of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:37 PM

156. This is why you need a law like the Canadian CRTC.

Here is an article about it.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news

Then all serious news outlets need to follow the rules or get fined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:17 PM

16. I think it's because people who can't properly quote George Santayana are doomed to paraphrase him

 

Or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:48 PM

165. Aren't we the condescender?

Some of us have even viewed the quotation in Dachau.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:31 PM

20. Because lying is not freedom of speech

And fraud is not protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:51 PM

60. Lying most certainly is protected under the first amendment....

In fact Fox News a won a libel lawsuit simply by pointing out that there is nothing in either the first amendment of the constitution that prevents them from distorting or down right lying. The courts agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:49 PM

167. The corrupt SCOTUS who gave us Bush. Whoopie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #167)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:59 PM

180. Actually it was the FL Supreme Court

which is more liberal than our current abominable SCOTUS...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:52 PM

62. fraud is something else entirely.

fraud involves lying, but there's much more to it than that.

if i tell you that blue and green are the same color, is that really something i should go to jail for?
if fox news or the new york times says the same thing, is that really something they should be shut down for?

now, if i try to sell you something and claim it can cure cancer when i know full well it can do no such thing, that's certainly criminal, but the real harm lies not in telling you that i have a cure for cancer; the real harm lies in extracting your money in exchange for something that i have conned you into overvaluing.

that's not what i get from fox news.


plus, as i've noted elsewhere in this thread, it's easy to avoid technically lying. twisting the truth is far more effective propaganda anyway. so banning lies wouldn't accomplish much anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:10 PM

74. I will give you a more more or less back and white example

If I tell, willfully, a group under mandatory evacuation that there is no evacuation, my little fib could lead to somebody getting killed. Granted, people chose to stay behind and die every so often, but that is not because of a fib.

Granted, we are not talking of that, but some of the lies and half lies put out by the media (see Iraq war) have cost real lives.

That is what I take exception to, and yes...it is a real problem.

I will leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:15 PM

76. i agree that not all speech, even truthful speech, is entirely protected.

shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example.
incitement to riot, etc.

so your example might fall under that category.

i have no problem with legal action against such speech. but these are specific circumstances with specific, spredictably, directly harmful consequences. far more than mere "lying".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:26 PM

83. And that is what I am talking about

The often cited decision where the court sided with the local fox affiliate (and it could be any network) over reporters who wanted to report on growth hormone in milk and were prevented, in my mind was a mistake. The court should have sided with the reported who wanted to put this story out and were prevented from doing such

I think some of the fibs do fall in fire and crowded theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:30 PM

86. but i don't think any change in law is required for this.

my understanding is that the question for this thread is a ban on all lying period.

and that i think is a dangerous overreach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:10 PM

148. That court's decision protected all fibs

Precedent, so yes a law would be needed, one that I will bet will be challenged to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #148)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:17 PM

151. iirc, that "fib" didn't fall under the incitement to riot or libel or other restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #151)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:19 PM

152. Read the decision

It clearly allowed for them, as a corporate decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:16 PM

111. You bring to mind the question

what about censored news that would help the people if revealed, i.e. contaminated wells or poisoned food or other news that is needed for people to protect themselves. Should the censorship of such news be prosecuted?

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to texshelters (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:09 PM

147. In my mind yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:18 PM

80. You must consider the source....

The government was the source of those lies re: Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:29 PM

85. Yes, and we all know who their medium for this was

And the gray lady did he right thing with miller after the fact. There were some screaming doubts, see Sly Hersh, but overall the media fell inline. There was little questioning, alas that is part of the problem

Going back to my simple local example. We tend to believe government, and when it comes to evacuations you tend to believe fire people. But in matters f war and peace...we all need to question it...starting with the media. This is rarely done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:52 PM

88. I remember a more responsible press....

The takeover of the media by corporations and now the consolidation has pretty much destroyed the Fourth Estate in the US. Government has been subverting the press from the very beginning. Kennedy persuaded the Gray Lady to delay publishing their report on the planned Bay of Pigs invasion until after that fiasco had taken place. Everyone would have been better served if the NYT had gone ahead with their story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

150. Yup, what we need is the liberal application

Of the Sherman Anti Trust. What we are getting is further consolidation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:31 PM

114. Where is the Lying Exception in the 1A? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:46 PM

52. There are restrictions in regards to lying in advertising...

why not news?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:56 PM

67. lying in advertising induces overvaluation of a product in an effort to pry away money.

lying in news does not.


one could argue that lying makes it no longer "news" but merely "entertainment" or "opinion", but they already use that defense. it's still covered under the first amendment. not as freedom of the press, but as freedom of speech, as it ought to be.

i certainly don't want the government telling me that certain things are not true and cannot be uttered. i can only imagine what republicans would do with such power!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:47 PM

54. Absolutely agree with you....

Besides Fox self-identifies as "infotainment" ...only their viewers believe otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:11 PM

105. People generally dislike civil rights when people they don't like benefit from them. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:46 PM

164. So a "news" station reporting that, say, Iranians killed John Lennon, would just be "free speech"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:11 PM

8. You damn right it should be

after all this isn't just a walk in the park. Peoples lives depend on the turth, not just American lives either. The whole world does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:17 PM

14. No. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:17 PM

15. I don't for one second think the Framers..

... intention when writing the 1st Amendment, was to protect deliberate deception of We the People to make an end run, around democracy. Quite frankly, such actions are, in fact, treason, and should be treated as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:28 PM

18. Only if we first make it illegal for politicians to lie.

And that should include people running for office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr. Strange (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:34 PM

22. Brilliant thought!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr. Strange (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:48 PM

30. I had a riff on that...

It goes "I'm against the death penalty except for politicians who lie." A bit of hyperbole for me, as I don't do death penalty.

And I am against playing with our freedom of speech. Asking for trouble.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:32 PM

21. Nope

I'll assume we are talking about this in relation to Fox. They are free to spout whatever shit they wanna. Most of that is commentary anyways. I think in today's massive multimedia universe there is plenty of outlets to counter such nonsense. Who would be in charge of such policing anyways? Seems shady to me IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:35 PM

25. Damn Skippy.

It is illegal to lie in ads for cheeseburgers, but it's OK to lie on the news.

That is massively fucked up,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:35 PM

26. Truth in labeling.

If it is labeled as NEWS it should be some required percentage NEWS as opposed to OPINION, commentary, propaganda, whatever.

If it cannot meet the requirement it should be labeled ENTERTAINMENT or FICTION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:37 PM

27. It is in Canada. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:11 AM

139. Please Google "propaganda in canada"

 

See how the Canadian press has been used by the government to manipulate public opinion from World War I through the present.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/lovehatepropaganda/

It's all fine as long as your government is run by a benevolent party that supports truth, justice, goodness, and niceness. But in our country it hasn't always been that way, the present party in charge has not always been on the side of goodness and niceness, and there is no guarantee it will always be benevolent.

The risk in giving government the power to define truth is exactly why we have a First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:38 PM

28. I think they should be able to lie, but not when they're calling themselves "News"

If something is labeled as "news," people should be able to have some confidence.

Really though it wouldn't mean much. I mean, they'd still be able to mislead in other ways, like advertisements do. But if there were a plain old falsehood presented as fact, they should have some consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:55 PM

89. Concur - News is reporting and subject to a higher standing.

Fox News is almost Never news and almost always "spun" commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:57 PM

90. Concur - nt

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:38 PM

29. If it's a statement of known fact. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:58 PM

34. And double penalties for lying Political Ads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:01 PM

35. "Congress Shall Make No Law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

...assuming for a moment that you could actually define what a News Network is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:55 PM

179. I'm amazed at how many DU'ers in this poll are ready to throw that out the window.

It's not just "Freedom of Speech"
it's "Freedom of the Press"
When the government starts making laws about what can or can't be said in the Press the 1st Amendment is gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:03 PM

37. yes. that is why fox news can't get into Canada.

Harper the asshole was hoping so but Canadian regulations said NO FUCKING WAY.

yay canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:08 PM

119. *sigh*

yet again I must debunk this.

FOX NEWS IS IN CANADA. HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME.

I know, because we watch it for laughs every now and again.

Heck, we even have our own Fox News north called Sun News.

Our regulations for news being truthful are pretty soft. All it is is a code of ethics for broadcasters that says, "full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial.” When there are a lot of complaints, a panel (made up of citizens and people from the broadcasting industry) convenes to go over the concerns. That's it. No fines or nothing. If a network is found 'guilty' so to speak, they just have to air an online statement about the ruling.

Regulations that were in no way strong enough to keep out Fox News. Fox News just had to get through the CRTC first, that's why it was delayed - which happens often with new 'foreign' channels trying to get on Canadian cable/satellite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:09 PM

39. We could hook them up to polygraphs

Everyone would tune into Fox just to watch those needles jump all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:18 PM

113. Ha ha

I like that idea.

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:17 PM

43. Who determines what is a news organizations?

 

Are you going to nail J. Stewart when he tells an untrue joke? How about the Onion? It claims it is a news source.

If Stewart gets a pass because he is "entertainment", all the news channels have to do is declare they are entertainment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:19 PM

44. Dictionary.com is your friend.

ie:

joke

news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:24 PM

45. The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

http://www.theonion.com/


Is Stewart News? He present a lot of news/current events. The humor-impaired cannot tell the difference. It is even more true for Colbert.

Dictionary.com:
news Show IPA
noun, ( usually used with a singular verb )
1.
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2.
the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
3.
such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.
4.
a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. Compare copy ( def 5 ) .

Sure looks like those guys fit the definition.

Way to encourage their arrest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:30 PM

46. You don't quite get the ..

... hyperbole thing, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:40 PM

49. I certainly do

 

Lots of people don't.

SO, who gets to be the judge, you or them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:50 PM

58. Me. of course.

After all, I am all things to all people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:51 PM

61. The law.

Any organization that seriously calls themselves news or journal would need to follow guidelines set up by the law unless they want to claim they are entertainment. That would take care of the whole Fox News Channel. They would have to claim to be Fox Entertainment. They could still exist. They just couldn't claim that they are a serious news outlet. I mean Stewart has always called The Daily Show a fake news show. See the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:00 PM

71. Who defines what "seriously" is?

 

I know, I know: you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:04 PM

72. Not me. Standards of journalism have been in place for hundreds of

years and are taught in most universities. I don't think it will be a problem to translate those into some laws, not draconian, but some that will deter this wholesale dumbing down of information that we the people need to figure our way through life and to make decisions germane to the prosperity of our nation. The comedians can carry on and so can Fox Entertainment Fictional News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:17 PM

79. Loopholes are too easy

 

All they would have to do is tell a couples of jokes (or something they even claim is a joke) and they avoid the labels as a news organization.

If you count anything that uses "news" in the their title, you include the Onion and Weekly World News. I guess I just don't want that much monitoring/control/limitation of the 1st amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:00 PM

91. So according to you, we should sit back and do nothing because

loopholes are too easy. And actually, avoiding the label as a news organization accomplishes what we want. If they want to deal in fiction let them say what it is. Real news needs to be truthful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:11 PM

127. Yes, the gov't should sit back and do nothing

 

The individuals, however, should evaluate their sources and choose the one that tells the truth. I think people are smart enough to make that decision for themselves.

The label, frankly, will not change a thing. Would you be more or less likely to watch Stewart if he claimed his show was news? I wouldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:30 PM

128. I watch Stewart because he's smart and funny.

How he labels his show is irrelevant to me. I think our dysfunctional news system shows that we need to do something else. The Canadians and Brits have a workable system. We need to think about doing the same. Our democracy depends on dependable information. Or we can allow our Pravda news to keep us as well informed as Pravda did the Soviet Union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:12 AM

136. I agree, he is smart and funny

 

You do realize that Pravda was a news source where the gov't controlled the content, right?

Sorry, I just don't trust the gov't to determine what is news or what is true. It would change depending on what party is in power. No thanks. I can figure out what is true and what isn't all by myself. With as many outlets as are available, I can find a close approximation to the truth just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:33 PM

155. Everything was run by the Soviet Union because they practiced

communism, where the government runs everything, even the factory that make your shoes. I used this as an example of lying journalism because I'm tired of referencing Nazis although it seems to be the direction our economy is going. However, the Nazi propagandized already existing news outlets. Fascist style governments are opposite of communist ones you know but they often practice the same abuses.

When the Nazis took over Germany, Goebbels became the Propaganda Minister and he controlled all the media. They were privately owned but had to toe the party line and not mention anything anti-Hitler or anti-Nazi. I mean they blatantly called the office the Reich Minister of Propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Yet the Canadian Broadcasting Company is crown owned or owned and funded by the government. They used to air on what is the Current TV channel today. I watched them during the early dark days when CNN was co-opted as another cable news channel to praise all things George Bush. When Al Gore bought the channel they stopped airing their news programs. Yet, even though government owned they manage to put out legitimate and accurate news. Why? Because they too have to follow the laws that forbid deliberate lies in news in Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AlexSatan (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:37 PM

47. If you think Stewart and Colbert are news organizations, I have a bridge....

They make fun of the news. That is their job although there are times they report on stuff while making fun of it that the news has either ignored or lied about. The fact that people find themselves looking to Stewart, Colbert and Maher too for news is because our corporate propaganda system has fallen short of their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:42 PM

50. I don't.

 

However, apparently young Americans do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/25/young-americans-see-colbe_n_178884.html

Young Americans See Colbert, Stewart Replacing Traditional News Outlets: Poll

Take it up with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:48 PM

56. They are in a perverse sort of way because our news organizations are falling

short on the job. Also, comedians are truthful. That's where the comedy gold is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:14 PM

108. What is an "organization"?

I mean, if you want to pursue this ridiculousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:48 PM

55. Already is

It's called libel. The problem is that not ALL lies are illegal. Only those that can shown be causing "damage" or "injury". And it has to be shown to be intentional, or with callous disregard for the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:52 PM

63. Perhaps...

... that's exactly the problem.

jez sayin'....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:55 PM

66. Sorry, Fla Supreme Court already decided the issue

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company’s production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida’s whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a “law, rule, or regulation”, and so the whistle blower law did not apply.

The court agreed with WTVT’s (Fox) argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/home.htm#FOX

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:58 PM

171. Wow...I never knew about that case..

so much for "serving the public interest..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:56 PM

68. Where is the separating line between a "gross exaggeration" and a "lie"?

There is the problem right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:57 PM

69. WHAT ABOUT THE FOX PROPAGANDA NETWORK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HowHasItComeToThis (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:58 PM

70. As long as they call themselves entertainment and fake news for Republicans

they will be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HowHasItComeToThis (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 PM

75. They have the same First Amendment rights the Hearst propaganda network, the Chandler propaganda...

 

...network, the Murdoch propaganda network, the Copley propaganda network, the Forbes propaganda network, etc. have all enjoyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:20 PM

82. If the news programming, advertised as such, is leasing airwaves from the us...

If the news programming, advertised as such, is leasing airwaves from the us, (ie., the FCC), I believe they should have the responsibility to consciously avoid any misleading statements; and further, editorial and analysis should be labeled specifically as editorial and analysis of the news, rather than as news itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:37 PM

87. No - first amendment.

However if we were to bring back regulations and the fairness doctrine it would make sources like Fox News finally be held accountable for bullshit mountain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:10 PM

93. Who gets to decide what's true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:16 PM

97. Yep, that's always the down side to all of this, who is the holder of

unequivocal truth and who makes that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:36 PM

99. No. It conflicts with the 1st amendment.

As other posters have noted, what counts as true is often contested. We don't need the government trying to watch over that, on most matters. And for the most part, the 1st amendment forbids our government from doing so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:37 PM

100. yes. it's a great responsibility they bare. they should be held to the highest standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:42 PM

102. I want truth in advertising

If they want to call a program "news," it has to pass fact checking, the events have to be current, and the language has to be objective.

Anything else needs to be labeled as what it is: "opinion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:08 PM

103. The real solution is

getting rid of joint ownership and opening up the media, the mass media like radio and television, to more ownership. We need diversity of opinion and less consolidation, otherwise, we get outlets like Fox News taken seriously.

We could also use more media education in our schools so people don't believe so many lies.

Some standards might be good, but who would decide. I guess one standard might be, "If the lie causes immediate harm" i.e. if someone's picture is posted as a sex offender on air and they get killed despite their innocence. I think there are already laws for this though...

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:10 PM

104. 143 crackpots and rising

pathetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:14 PM

109. Work for FOX, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:15 PM

110. You misspelled "Read the First Amendment" (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:40 PM

157. You misspelled "State Propaganda."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #157)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:17 PM

181. No, that's what you're advocating. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:32 PM

115. Indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:07 AM

138. It seems many of the great Dystopian writers of the Cold War era were right

 

Orwell, Vonnegut, Dick, Farmer, Burgess, Bradbury, et al. They all saw it coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:01 PM

172. or 143 not so swift folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:06 PM

118. Canada

It is. In Canada faux noos Canada (Sun News) tried the same none sense failed!

But what do the Canadians know.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:17 PM

120. WOW. 87% of DUers want Dan Rather to go to prison

for claiming that a MS Word document came from a 1973 typewriter?

Pretty scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:29 PM

122. No they don't and we know that Dan Rather was railroaded.

News organizations make mistakes and that needs to be taken into account, however, to deliberately mislead the public and spread propaganda needs to be addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #120)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:41 PM

158. Bwah! Rather had the goods on Dubya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:42 PM

124. Lying propaganda outlets should not be allowed to call themselves "news".

They can call themselves "fiction," which would be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:00 AM

134. Should DU be allowed to have a subforum called "Late Breaking News"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:42 PM

159. Message boards aren't subsidized by tax-payers over the air-waves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #159)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:14 PM

173. OK, so you're only talking about old-style over-the-air TV.

Not satellite, or cable, so Fox News would be unaffected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:43 PM

125. Free over-the-air broadcasts are riding the people's airwaves and can be lawfully regulated. Cable

networks, First Amendment prevails. Even lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:37 PM

129. Criminal Anti-Defamation Laws have been a useful tool for censorship and opression

With a jury of tea-baggers, good luck reporting that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:44 PM

130. Should the liberal media be prosecuted for spreading all their left-wing anti-American lies?

That is how it would turn out. You do know that, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:48 PM

131. Sarah Palin agrees

She actually thought there was a "Department of Law" at the White House that would protect her from "Baseless allegations".

Really people - think this one through. How can anybody not see how the threat alone would be chilling? I'm amazed that there is even a single Yes vote in the thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8016906&page=1#.UMAh4IPBEs8

Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations. "I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:05 AM

137. As my 8th grade US History teacher explained, the far left and the far right are indistingushable...

 

...from each other because both extremes lead to authoritarianism.

Or, as a Chinese former co-worker of mine quipped "A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:49 PM

132. Define "News Network"

And then define "Lie"

500 years from now, when you're done litigating those issues, we'll talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:28 AM

135. Good lord no.

Remember, it was accepted truth that Saddam had WMDs. If it wasn't acceptable to challenge that "truth", it would still be considered truth. And whatever board was in charge with it would be stacked with right wingers in short order. The first Republican president would load it up and we'd never throw them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:20 AM

140. I'm fascinated and pleased that not one person has voted Undecided in the poll yet

 

This could be one of the most enlightening discussions in a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

142. Only about things that are not subjective...

 

For example, anything originating with a major consensus from the scientific community.

If you lie about climate change to millions of people, then I would laugh heartily as they haul your ass off to prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #142)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

149. So if a scientist came out with evidence against it...

 

You would slap him in irons?

That isn't science...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:30 AM

143. You know, I've Just had a Newsroom HBO Marathon

They talked about how the government once paid for an allocated 1 hour of news every night.
The issue was that they allowed Advertisements in that hour, which was a mistake. Because of that, networks then had to go for the sensational stories rather than providing factual and reasoned out context of the news.

I thought that was important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:30 AM

144. There is no way to police that

There is no way it can be illegal as "lie" can be interpreted.

Libel and slander laws put some limits on freedom of speech, but only in a civil context.

There should be no criminal laws against any speech. The solution is more speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:35 AM

145. 85% of DUers hold a frightening and totally fucked up position. Jeezus.

who decides on what is and isn't a lie? Let's pretend this moronic "no lying law" is somehow passed. It's clear that this would be nothing more than political dog shit of the stinkiest kind. Is omitting a salient fact, a lie? What about opinion? Interpretation?

This is beyond stupid. It's dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:34 AM

146. I have, over the last year, been forced to re-examine my views of the internet left

I am running out of excuses.

The core problem is not right vs. left. It is rational versus irrational, honest versus dishonest.

The fact that Republican elected officials are more irrational and more dishonest than Democratic elected officials does not really tell us anything about the mental qualities of subsets of voters on the internet.

DU is not sufficiently more honest or rational than a RW forum to dwell on the distinction.

A dog-shit versus cat-shit argument at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:52 PM

168. sadly true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:35 PM

177. unfortunately, as this poll proves -at best DU is only marginally more gifted with critical thinking

than Free Republic.

This has nothing to do with whether the person is on the left-wing or the right-wing of this Forum. It has to do with whether a person has any ability to set aside their emotions and look rationally at the obvious consequences of their positions that they are taking. It does not require exceptional critical thinking skills to recognize that the proposal of making it criminal for a news service to "lie" opens the door to authoritarianism. It takes only a normal level of critical thinking along with some basic human empathy. The one who will decide what is a real lie as opposed to just a difference of opinion - if God Forbid such draconian legislation were to ever be passed in some future Orwellian society - will be a political decision based on who has the political power to declare something a lie instead of just a difference of opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

160. Tonkin Gulf? Was that "an opinion"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #160)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:54 PM

169. please, please grab a clue.

Where was that lie generated? Not on network news. and you still didn't address my main point? Who is the "decider"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #169)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:19 PM

175. Bush's cousin who works for FOX.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:21 PM

153. Can you imagine all the super pacs Rove & Kochs would fund trying to bring down msnbc?

And even Current?

Something needs to be done, but a truth law won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

161. You mean, other than the efforts they are making as we speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:04 PM

154. Other: You should be able to take them to court for things objectively false n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #154)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:44 PM

162. You can already do that, but you have to prove a few things in order to win in court...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #154)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:16 PM

174. YES. Perhaps this could be called "slander" (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #174)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:18 PM

182. Defamation law already applies to the news. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:45 PM

163. As long as I can get a job at The Ministry of Truth

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:48 PM

166. NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:56 PM

170. “And yet,to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.”

 

― William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:23 PM

176. "In Pravda there is no news, in Izvestia there is no truth." Used to be a joke.

To 14% of the respondents, it's an example of "free speech."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #176)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:21 PM

178. Actually, having government act as the arbiter of truth and of newsworthiness is exactly...

 

...what the majority of respondents are seeking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:23 PM

183. ridiculous, who decides what's a lie? you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:55 PM

184. Hmm would Ed Shultz and Hannity

share the same cell?

No it should not be, and fortunately so or MSNBC and Fox would fill a prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:23 AM

185. "Yes" voters - If George Zimmerman wins his lawsuit against MSNBC for their selective editing...

 

...then what kind of penalty would you have the government impose on the company for lying?

He's suing the company for defamation. A victory in civil court would be de facto proof that MSNBC had intentionally lied. Given that MSNBC terminated people for doctoring the recording, I think he has a good chance of winning if he can prove actual damages.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1938962

ETA Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe the Yes people haven't really thought this issue through to its potential unintended consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #185)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:49 PM

186. Oops, looks like I killed it.

 

Sorry thread, we hardly know ye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread