The problem is that there's this little bugaboo called the 1st amendment that has to be gotten around.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Being able to put out false, biased, or half-true news stories is not freedom of speech. It's slander. There should be tighter vetting for professionals using a medium to deliver news for profit.
Freedom of speech is fine. Freedom of the Press is fine. This slanderous, half-truth media we currently have, especially on the Internet, is doing a disservice to journalism as a whole. There are no longer any trusted faces in journalism as their used to be because there don't appear to be any journalistic standards for accuracy for the news.
Not sure how far it will go, but it is concerning that it's even being considered at the top.
Being able to put out false, biased, or half-true news stories is not freedom of speech. It's slander.
RiverDog wrote:Absouletly true, but what are we going to do about it? Even if we were able to take care of business within our own borders, it's not going to stop those that do the same thing outside them. It's the same problem that LE has trying to stop the scam artists.
If I had my druthers, I'd charge fines for all this fake news or "Could be" stories or the like.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If I had my druthers, I'd charge fines for all this fake news or "Could be" stories or the like. I see so much garbage "news" based on tweets, maybe he said, someone might have said, I heard, and other such garbage that I've lost near complete faith in the news.
burrrton wrote:You mean your druthers on a bizarro world where the First Amendment doesn't exist?
Not sure you'd like it as much as you think you would if so.
RiverDog wrote:I hear ya, and I wish the hell we could do something about the "tabloid journalism".
But there's a lot of problems just with proving "fake news". It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. If most or even just some of it is basically true, is the entire story to be considered "fake"? And are you going to foot the legal bill to take someone to court that's spewing "fake news"?
It's a slippery slope that we head down when we, or rather the courts, start regulating what people can say and what they can't. So rather than try to stop fake news, the most practical tactic we can use is for us as intelligent individuals to to be able to recognize fake news when we see it and call it for what it is.
Which brings us to the real problem: We are a country comprised of morons of which 30% of us can't even find the Pacific Ocean on a map.
The only part I wouldn't like...
burrrton wrote:I'm all for holding people's feet to the fire, but I think the part you and everyone else who advocates for ripping up the 1A wouldn't like is when people who disagree with you are calling the shots.
It's that old saw: people who advocate for central planning always envision *themselves* as the central planners.
On a related note, we see this in Presidential politics today- everybody who advocates/advocated for the POTUS to bypass Congress to get every idea of his implemented now barks like hell when it's not their guy doing the end-around.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The only part I wouldn't like when it comes to improving journalistic standards requiring things like printing entire speeches rather than cherry-picking quotes to make someone look bad or allowing people to toss out random, unsubstantiated accusations from decades ago that ruin careers or the like is the fact that certain people would use any laws to improve journalistic honesty in an abusive manner, just as they use the freedom in an abusive manner. Unfortunately, anything involving human beings is going to be used in an abusive, selfish manner due to the nature of humans. The exact reason why I understand why the wealthy are building robots to replace humans in many areas. Not having to deal with human stupidity, weakness, and general inability to think logically allows them more control of irrational, damaging behavior like we see all over the world. The real answer to mass shootings, Islamic terrorism, and the like is robots ensuring these people are controlled and managed, so that people not engaged in such vile behavior are protected.
A higher standard for the press who are expected to deliver us truthful, accurate news would be nice.
Fox News is the king of news for ratings as they attempt to distill complex subjects into soundbytes used by mom and pop conservatives to back up their living room conservative beliefs.
If the major news agencies representing a broad political spectrum could ever get together and set up a review board, they could set basic journalistic standards for those seeking to obtain their certification.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 93 guests