Should it be illegal for the news to lie?

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

discuss

roflolololmao

Why can't I say both "yes" and "fuck Fox"?

They're basically the same answer anyway.

PiEman wrote:Why can't I say both "yes" and "fuck Fox"?

They're basically the same answer anyway.

My sentiments exactly

lol. Fox sux

The press has the freedom to say what it wants

it should not be illegal to do that


I do think people should stop watching news programs that lie though






honorable news programs should have more viewers

Its not legal to spread false information, or something like that anyways. Says so in the Bill of Rights

BBJynne wrote:The press has the freedom to say what it wants

it should not be illegal to do that

This is true. We can't make it something that corporations are legally bound to. However, what we can do, is create a Federal News License. Those who apply for a license would be legally bound to present the news in a truthful manner. News Networks that do not have a license won't be 'looked after,' but they also would not be taken at all seriously by the viewing public.

I agree with Toaster. (for once)

If we create such a law, then CNN would get hammered as hard as Fox.

What is lying? Is it saying that Russia is not invading Chechnya when it is? Is it refusing to disclose your sources, when you're revealing government secrets? Is it saying "9-11 was an inside job" when all you have going for you is half-cooked conspiracy theories and a seemingly incompetent president inside the White House? Is it ignoring the President's affairs, because "That's his personal life"? Is it hammering a presidential candidate for not correcting an audience member who refers to the opposing candidate as a "Filthy raghead", but ignoring the guy a week later when that very same candidate tells an audience member "He's not an Arab. He is simply someone I disagree with."

So, where do you draw the line on 'lying'?
The problem is, journalists have NO MORAL CODE. Not like doctors. They are out to sell stories and sell copies. That's why you have articles about Bo the First Dog and the fact that Obama swatted a fly that landed on him during an interview, which is funny because Lincoln had a run-in with a fly as well.

That's why I am opposed to an outright ban on 'lying'. Because I know it wouldn't be enforced, wouldn't be evenly applied, and would be too vague.

If I was in charge, however, you'd definitely see a journalistic code of ethics being applied.

Well I think there is already an unofficial Journalistic code. I think saying that Journalists employ no ethics is going a bit far...

Watching that video, it seems more like it's the father corporatiions who have no journalistic morals. Still, I can certainly see some fields where there are none... like celebrity gossip, and crap like that.

ReconToaster wrote:Well I think there is already an unofficial Journalistic code. I think saying that Journalists employ no ethics is going a bit far...

In the UK there is an official self-regulatory code that can be read here. This is written by the main editors and adhered to throughout the country. The beauty of this system is that while it does not 'have' to be followed because breaking it would not break any laws, it prevents the necessity for new laws to be put into place. It's a very similar system to our censorship of films, games etc.

As of now, nobody has defaulted on the code - and if they have by accident, they have apologised in a further release. As you can see, accuracy is number one on the list.

This is for newspapers, but I'm pretty sure the news programmes are the same.

I think the media should be restrained a bit, when it comes to bending the truth.

Case and point here and the U.K there was a lot of controversy about the MMR Jab. Controversy the Media created.

One scientist did a very small study, and concluded that it was linked to Autism. Now, most of the Scientific community, then and even to this day, have pointed out he was wrong. It has been proved time and time again.

So why is it still controversal, causing parents to boycott the vaccination, and risk a measles epidemic?

Because the media found this and blew it out of proportion. They never showed the other side of the argument, the never showed how small his investigation was, and even now they making it sound like a risk, even though it's completely harmless.

If there is a epidemic, the blood of those children are on their hands.

That is why the media was be better controlled to make them tell the truth, or at least balance their stories.

the media (anything that is under U.S. law anyways) cannot legally state something that is false as fact; however, they can choose to omit some information, which they almost always do.

Opinions are gaaay

and i thought wall street was corrupt.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
That's why I am opposed to an outright ban on 'lying'. Because I know it wouldn't be enforced, wouldn't be evenly applied, and would be too vague.

well 'lie' was jsut a word to make the title fit.

It mostly means "intentionally reporting information that is KNOWN TO BE FALSE, or purposefully misleading viewers."

The best idea is to have the news as a tax funded resource, like the library. It wouldn't be government controlled, but it wouldn't matter how many papers it sold or how many views it got, and it's job would simply be to deliver truthful news. Since they are not just trying to make money off of their stories they have much more obligation to make them true.

Dud Doodoo wrote:The best idea is to have the news as a tax funded resource, like the library. It wouldn't be government controlled, but it wouldn't matter how many papers it sold or how many views it got, and it's job would simply be to deliver truthful news. Since they are not just trying to make money off of their stories they have much more obligation to make them true.

The BBC is tax funded in the UK. It's probably one of the most trustworthy news sources around.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:The best idea is to have the news as a tax funded resource, like the library. It wouldn't be government controlled, but it wouldn't matter how many papers it sold or how many views it got, and it's job would simply be to deliver truthful news. Since they are not just trying to make money off of their stories they have much more obligation to make them true.

The BBC is tax funded in the UK. It's probably one of the most trustworthy news sources around.

Well it's more a of a separate license, but yeah. You don't have to pay it - but if you don't and you watch the BBC you get fined.

I think it should be illegal for everyone to lie...

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:The best idea is to have the news as a tax funded resource, like the library. It wouldn't be government controlled, but it wouldn't matter how many papers it sold or how many views it got, and it's job would simply be to deliver truthful news. Since they are not just trying to make money off of their stories they have much more obligation to make them true.

The BBC is tax funded in the UK. It's probably one of the most trustworthy news sources around.

Even though they spread that MMR Lies like Wildfire.

All news networks distort the truth, not Just Fox, as with almost everything it's a business, and you can really only cater to a certain group (not to say they don't know how to maximize their viewing profile), but really, all networks spin the truth.

http://www.novamov.com/video/49a5a75c73f7c

ReconToaster wrote:

BBJynne wrote:The press has the freedom to say what it wants

it should not be illegal to do that

This is true. We can't make it something that corporations are legally bound to. However, what we can do, is create a Federal News License. Those who apply for a license would be legally bound to present the news in a truthful manner. News Networks that do not have a license won't be 'looked after,' but they also would not be taken at all seriously by the viewing public.

1000% agree

+1 internets

Ringleader wrote:All news networks distort the truth, not Just Fox, as with almost everything it's a business, and you can really only cater to a certain group (not to say they don't know how to maximize their viewing profile), but really, all networks spin the truth.

http://www.novamov.com/video/49a5a75c73f7c

LOL! Did you just link to Zeitgeist? Prepare to face some feedback.

All News Networks DO distort the truth, but stations like MSNBC and FOX are particularly good at it.