Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(10,893 posts)
Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:57 PM Dec 2012

Should it be against the law for news networks to lie? [View all]

96 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
77 (80%)
16 (17%)
1 (1%)
2 (2%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
186 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No. It's not always possible to determine an absolute, objective truth. slackmaster Dec 2012 #1
But there should be standards to deal with that. intheflow Dec 2012 #6
I fully agree with you on your "shoulds" but there is a big difference between self-enforced... slackmaster Dec 2012 #12
Consider the following two headlines... brooklynite Dec 2012 #38
That's a great example. Even assurance of objective truth would not eliminate spin and bias. slackmaster Dec 2012 #57
I'm not saying journalism doesn't have a POV. intheflow Dec 2012 #59
The items in your last paragraph are all perfectly acceptable forms of journalism... slackmaster Dec 2012 #77
Which is what I said in my original post that started this sub-thread. n/t intheflow Dec 2012 #121
I think you would be hard-pressed to prove lying in any of these cases... brooklynite Dec 2012 #96
"Being mistaken" is not synonymous with "lying." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #106
Rather often treated that way when it benefits the accuser. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #112
Unequivocal yes. Alternatively, if that conflicts with the 1st amendment, then closeupready Dec 2012 #2
^This^. pacalo Dec 2012 #9
I think there used to be a strongly worded federal statute against lying by the media left on green only Dec 2012 #32
You are completely wrong... brooklynite Dec 2012 #40
Granted. That opened the door to unfair & unbalanced "news", imo. pacalo Dec 2012 #42
Yes, indeed. pacalo Dec 2012 #41
This I Like ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #10
Department of Truth... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #13
Hello? That's why I said, 'open to other views'. closeupready Dec 2012 #17
What I am saying... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #24
That's the pat argument against controls. It's not black or white. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #92
that's what courts do. spanone Dec 2012 #101
And the government never lies? Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #51
What does that have to do with anything? closeupready Dec 2012 #53
sanctioned by the government, your words... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #64
Maybe so. On the other hand, it seems to work closeupready Dec 2012 #73
It works in commercial speech Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #78
That's always the one problem, who is the one with unequivocal truth. Often governments lie RKP5637 Dec 2012 #94
Exactly. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #98
Hey.. my Schticky is awesome... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #116
BBB? Better Business Bureau? Those guys are a bunch of charletans, too! MADem Dec 2012 #81
No, I didn't - thank you for the info. closeupready Dec 2012 #84
*Disinformation Turborama Dec 2012 #126
I don't know about that but limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #3
Exactly! Spike89 Dec 2012 #33
I really think too that breaking up media conglomerates would be a major step in RKP5637 Dec 2012 #95
Yep texshelters Dec 2012 #107
I Do Sympathize With the Idea, Sir.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #4
However, be ready for the backlash you will receive on this. Cleita Dec 2012 #5
canadians don't have our republicans. unblock Dec 2012 #19
So what does that have to do with making the news an honest broker? Cleita Dec 2012 #31
this article is perfect for this thread Enrique Dec 2012 #133
how on earth can opposition to freedom of speech be winning this poll??? unblock Dec 2012 #7
Because enough is enough. Cleita Dec 2012 #11
maybe if we somehow made a law that only canadians could enforce this law it might work. unblock Dec 2012 #23
You are making no sense. Cleita Dec 2012 #36
first, there's simply no way to legislate out propaganda. the best propaganda involves twisting unblock Dec 2012 #48
There is a way. The Canadians have found it. Also, the Brits make a serious and legal Cleita Dec 2012 #65
Well, you know, we kind of tried the liberal media thing. Selatius Dec 2012 #117
well the broad problems are an excess of corporate influence and wealth concentration unblock Dec 2012 #123
This is why you need a law like the Canadian CRTC. Cleita Dec 2012 #156
I think it's because people who can't properly quote George Santayana are doomed to paraphrase him slackmaster Dec 2012 #16
Aren't we the condescender? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #165
Because lying is not freedom of speech nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #20
Lying most certainly is protected under the first amendment.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #60
The corrupt SCOTUS who gave us Bush. Whoopie. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #167
Actually it was the FL Supreme Court Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #180
fraud is something else entirely. unblock Dec 2012 #62
I will give you a more more or less back and white example nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74
i agree that not all speech, even truthful speech, is entirely protected. unblock Dec 2012 #76
And that is what I am talking about nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #83
but i don't think any change in law is required for this. unblock Dec 2012 #86
That court's decision protected all fibs nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #148
iirc, that "fib" didn't fall under the incitement to riot or libel or other restrictions. unblock Dec 2012 #151
Read the decision nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #152
You bring to mind the question texshelters Dec 2012 #111
In my mind yes. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #147
You must consider the source.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #80
Yes, and we all know who their medium for this was nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #85
I remember a more responsible press.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #88
Yup, what we need is the liberal application nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #150
Where is the Lying Exception in the 1A? nt Codeine Dec 2012 #114
There are restrictions in regards to lying in advertising... Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #52
lying in advertising induces overvaluation of a product in an effort to pry away money. unblock Dec 2012 #67
Absolutely agree with you.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #54
People generally dislike civil rights when people they don't like benefit from them. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #105
So a "news" station reporting that, say, Iranians killed John Lennon, would just be "free speech"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #164
You damn right it should be madokie Dec 2012 #8
No. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #14
I don't for one second think the Framers.. 99Forever Dec 2012 #15
Only if we first make it illegal for politicians to lie. Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #18
Brilliant thought!! n/t Inkfreak Dec 2012 #22
I had a riff on that... immoderate Dec 2012 #30
Nope Inkfreak Dec 2012 #21
Damn Skippy. riqster Dec 2012 #25
Truth in labeling. tosh Dec 2012 #26
It is in Canada. n/t arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #27
Please Google "propaganda in canada" slackmaster Dec 2012 #139
I think they should be able to lie, but not when they're calling themselves "News" gollygee Dec 2012 #28
Concur - News is reporting and subject to a higher standing. laserhaas Dec 2012 #89
Concur - nt laserhaas Dec 2012 #90
If it's a statement of known fact. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #29
And double penalties for lying Political Ads. Matariki Dec 2012 #34
"Congress Shall Make No Law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" brooklynite Dec 2012 #35
I'm amazed at how many DU'ers in this poll are ready to throw that out the window. TeamPooka Dec 2012 #179
yes. that is why fox news can't get into Canada. Whisp Dec 2012 #37
*sigh* laundry_queen Dec 2012 #119
We could hook them up to polygraphs LeftInTX Dec 2012 #39
Ha ha texshelters Dec 2012 #113
Who determines what is a news organizations? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43
Dictionary.com is your friend. 99Forever Dec 2012 #44
The Onion - America's Finest News Source AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45
You don't quite get the .. 99Forever Dec 2012 #46
I certainly do AlexSatan Dec 2012 #49
Me. of course. 99Forever Dec 2012 #58
The law. Cleita Dec 2012 #61
Who defines what "seriously" is? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #71
Not me. Standards of journalism have been in place for hundreds of Cleita Dec 2012 #72
Loopholes are too easy AlexSatan Dec 2012 #79
So according to you, we should sit back and do nothing because Cleita Dec 2012 #91
Yes, the gov't should sit back and do nothing AlexSatan Dec 2012 #127
I watch Stewart because he's smart and funny. Cleita Dec 2012 #128
I agree, he is smart and funny AlexSatan Dec 2012 #136
Everything was run by the Soviet Union because they practiced Cleita Dec 2012 #155
The Chinese government has it all figured out. slackmaster Dec 2012 #141
If you think Stewart and Colbert are news organizations, I have a bridge.... Cleita Dec 2012 #47
I don't. AlexSatan Dec 2012 #50
They are in a perverse sort of way because our news organizations are falling Cleita Dec 2012 #56
What is an "organization"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #108
Already is zipplewrath Dec 2012 #55
Perhaps... 99Forever Dec 2012 #63
Sorry, Fla Supreme Court already decided the issue tech3149 Dec 2012 #66
Wow...I never knew about that case.. Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #171
Where is the separating line between a "gross exaggeration" and a "lie"? PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #68
As long as they call themselves entertainment and fake news for Republicans Cleita Dec 2012 #70
They have the same First Amendment rights the Hearst propaganda network, the Chandler propaganda... slackmaster Dec 2012 #75
If the news programming, advertised as such, is leasing airwaves from the us... LanternWaste Dec 2012 #82
No - first amendment. Initech Dec 2012 #87
Who gets to decide what's true? JVS Dec 2012 #93
Yep, that's always the down side to all of this, who is the holder of RKP5637 Dec 2012 #97
No. It conflicts with the 1st amendment. eallen Dec 2012 #99
yes. it's a great responsibility they bare. they should be held to the highest standard. spanone Dec 2012 #100
I want truth in advertising Warpy Dec 2012 #102
The real solution is texshelters Dec 2012 #103
143 crackpots and rising cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #104
Work for FOX, do you? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #109
You misspelled "Read the First Amendment" (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #110
You misspelled "State Propaganda." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #157
No, that's what you're advocating. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #181
Indeed. nt Codeine Dec 2012 #115
It seems many of the great Dystopian writers of the Cold War era were right slackmaster Dec 2012 #138
or 143 not so swift folks. cali Dec 2012 #172
Canada vrguy Dec 2012 #118
WOW. 87% of DUers want Dan Rather to go to prison Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #120
No they don't and we know that Dan Rather was railroaded. Cleita Dec 2012 #122
Bwah! Rather had the goods on Dubya! WinkyDink Dec 2012 #158
Lying propaganda outlets should not be allowed to call themselves "news". backscatter712 Dec 2012 #124
Should DU be allowed to have a subforum called "Late Breaking News"? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #134
Message boards aren't subsidized by tax-payers over the air-waves. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #159
OK, so you're only talking about old-style over-the-air TV. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #173
Free over-the-air broadcasts are riding the people's airwaves and can be lawfully regulated. Cable TransitJohn Dec 2012 #125
Criminal Anti-Defamation Laws have been a useful tool for censorship and opression ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #129
Should the liberal media be prosecuted for spreading all their left-wing anti-American lies? Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #130
Sarah Palin agrees ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #131
As my 8th grade US History teacher explained, the far left and the far right are indistingushable... slackmaster Dec 2012 #137
Define "News Network" Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #132
Good lord no. JoeyT Dec 2012 #135
I'm fascinated and pleased that not one person has voted Undecided in the poll yet slackmaster Dec 2012 #140
Only about things that are not subjective... Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #142
So if a scientist came out with evidence against it... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #149
You know, I've Just had a Newsroom HBO Marathon Xyzse Dec 2012 #143
There is no way to police that treestar Dec 2012 #144
85% of DUers hold a frightening and totally fucked up position. Jeezus. cali Dec 2012 #145
I have, over the last year, been forced to re-examine my views of the internet left cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #146
sadly true. cali Dec 2012 #168
unfortunately, as this poll proves -at best DU is only marginally more gifted with critical thinking Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #177
Tonkin Gulf? Was that "an opinion"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #160
please, please grab a clue. cali Dec 2012 #169
Bush's cousin who works for FOX. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #175
Can you imagine all the super pacs Rove & Kochs would fund trying to bring down msnbc? jillan Dec 2012 #153
You mean, other than the efforts they are making as we speak? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #161
Other: You should be able to take them to court for things objectively false n/t rock Dec 2012 #154
You can already do that, but you have to prove a few things in order to win in court... slackmaster Dec 2012 #162
YES. Perhaps this could be called "slander" (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #174
Defamation law already applies to the news. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #182
As long as I can get a job at The Ministry of Truth Throd Dec 2012 #163
NO. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #166
“And yet,to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.” guardian Dec 2012 #170
"In Pravda there is no news, in Izvestia there is no truth." Used to be a joke. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #176
Actually, having government act as the arbiter of truth and of newsworthiness is exactly... slackmaster Dec 2012 #178
ridiculous, who decides what's a lie? you? crazyjoe Dec 2012 #183
Hmm would Ed Shultz and Hannity Riftaxe Dec 2012 #184
"Yes" voters - If George Zimmerman wins his lawsuit against MSNBC for their selective editing... slackmaster Dec 2012 #185
Oops, looks like I killed it. slackmaster Dec 2012 #186
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should it be against the ...