General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf it's the Fake Media that is the problem then let's make a law that says newspapers, TV,
magazines, radio, and the online news sources must always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them ....insert appropriate deity.... For good measure we should require the same of all politicians or wanna be politicians.
Gee, I wonder who would be out of business in about two seconds ?
Qutzupalotl
(14,403 posts)madinmaryland
(64,937 posts)rights.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,403 posts)The ACLUs position is that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. If someone is wrong, he or she should be corrected but not silenced, at least not by the government. That preserves everybodys rights and advances debate.
In practice, the ACLUs position allows bubbles of lies to form and remain unchallenged (see FOX News). They nevertheless say that the freedom to speak is more precious than somehow arbitrating all speech and permitting only true things to be said. The government cannot do that under the Constitution, for good reason.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)nykym
(3,063 posts)The Fairness Doctrine!
onenote
(43,136 posts)Leaving aside the fact that it never applied to non-broadcast cable networks like a Fox News and that it almost certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court given the plethora of outlets for communicating news and information, there is the simple fact that compliance with the FD was a very low bar. The first part of the FD merely mandated that broadcasters cover controversial matters of public interest. That isn't going to change anything. The second part required that broadcasters air contrasting views regarding those matters. But the broadcaster got to pick how those contrasting views were presented and it was never an 'equal time' rule.
The FD has been gone for over 30 years. I suspect many of those who think its return would be a panacea weren't around when it was in effect or didn't really know much about it.
ego_nation
(123 posts)Is that you can tell the truth and still be deceptive. Fox News bread and butter is anecdotal accounts that do not offer broader contexts.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)"facts" are sometimes difficult to pin down. And even more difficult to prove in some situations.
But it's frustrating and ultimately dangerous that media outlets, which enjoy Constitutional protection, have no reciprocal Constitutional (or even legislative) responsibility to keep the public properly and adequately informed.
onenote
(43,136 posts)"A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."
The Justices signing onto that opinion included William O. Douglas, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.
IcyPeas
(22,015 posts)so they can "opine" on whatever they want.