Your thoughts on a hypothetical bill?

[Daemon Sophic]

The freedom of the press is paramount; almost as much as the freedom of speech. However “News” is a more recent invention. News has an obligation to tell only the truth: sticking solely to the facts without bias, fear, or favor.

I am curious how other forum members would think of this and what suggestions you might have for this.

If someone were to propose a new federal bill that would in no way compromise the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but would put a restriction on what it is to be defined as “News”, with regulations and punishments for claiming to be News when you were actually not.

My thoughts run along the lines of allowing networks/stations/shows to have the title “NEWS” on the screen while their reporter(s) do their thing on air. But, if your broadcasting is shown to be over a certain number of falsehoods/mistakes/lies per month (I would say 1 or more times), then you would have the title “NEWS” stripped from your broadcast, and a big rolling pink logo on your screen would read “BIASED PROPOGANDA, LIES, AND INNUENDO” until such time as you spent at least an entire 24hour broadcast day (without advertisements) wailing and denouncing your lies on air, at cost to your company and your advertisers, decrying what was wrong about your statements and announcing the facts, along with your sincere apologies.
Errors can be caught and thoroughly corrected with apologies (made large and unmissable - i.e. during your busiest hours) in order to prevent having your NEWS title stripped.

You still have the right to spew whatever factless, deceitful drivel that you want. You can even buy a whole network to do so. But you will not have the privilege of calling yourself NEWS if you do.


So, what do you think? What do you think advertisers would think?

 

[Heyo]

Good idea.

Alternative law: every person or group who feels to be lied about or misrepresented has the right to publish a counterstatement in the same paper / on the same show. The counterstatement should be equally presented, same length as the original, same place (e.g if the original news was on the front page, the counterstatement has to be on the front page).

 

[icehorse]

not a bad start at all

 

[Tambourine]

Even in the best circumstances, this comes about 10-15 years too late.

 

[Stevicus]

The freedom of the press is paramount; almost as much as the freedom of speech. However “News” is a more recent invention. News has an obligation to tell only the truth: sticking solely to the facts without bias, fear, or favor.

I am curious how other forum members would think of this and what suggestions you might have for this.

If someone were to propose a new federal bill that would in no way compromise the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but would put a restriction on what it is to be defined as “News”, with regulations and punishments for claiming to be News when you were actually not.

My thoughts run along the lines of allowing networks/stations/shows to have the title “NEWS” on the screen while their reporter(s) do their thing on air. But, if your broadcasting is shown to be over a certain number of falsehoods/mistakes/lies per month (I would say 1 or more times), then you would have the title “NEWS” stripped from your broadcast, and a big rolling pink logo on your screen would read “BIASED PROPOGANDA, LIES, AND INNUENDO” until such time as you spent at least an entire 24hour broadcast day (without advertisements) wailing and denouncing your lies on air, at cost to your company and your advertisers, decrying what was wrong about your statements and announcing the facts, along with your sincere apologies.
Errors can be caught and thoroughly corrected with apologies (made large and unmissable - i.e. during your busiest hours) in order to prevent having your NEWS title stripped.

You still have the right to spew whatever factless, deceitful drivel that you want. You can even buy a whole network to do so. But you will not have the privilege of calling yourself NEWS if you do.


So, what do you think? What do you think advertisers would think?

I like the idea in theory, although I can see there would problems whenever someone has to make a judgment call as to whether it fits in with the definition of "news." News organizations used to be responsible enough to separate commentary from actual news.

They used to have the Fairness Doctrine before it was done away with under Reagan.

What I find interesting is that despite having a system which guarantees a Free Press, Free Speech, and a free market economic system, there doesn't appear to be all that much competition when it comes to the mainstream media. They're all basically clones of each other, even if Fox News is often singled out as some kind of "black sheep" among the media.

I think this is how the news should be:

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Good idea.

Alternative law: every person or group who feels to be lied about or misrepresented has the right to publish a counterstatement in the same paper / on the same show. The counterstatement should be equally presented, same length as the original, same place (e.g if the original news was on the front page, the counterstatement has to be on the front page).

I’m not so certain about that one. What if I have done an extensive investigative journalist piece on some scandal inside one multi-billion dollar industry, and it goes front page. I’ve and my new station have invested months into the investigation.
The next day the CEO of the company and all of his lawyers get to put up an equal splash in the eyes of the public without evidence or punishment for lying.

Even in the best circumstances, this comes about 10-15 years too late.

Maybe. But, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

 

[sun rise]

I like the idea in theory. But in the current sad state of affairs, this is what we have to deal with:

 

[Valjean]

Good idea.

Alternative law: every person or group who feels to be lied about or misrepresented has the right to publish a counterstatement in the same paper / on the same show. The counterstatement should be equally presented, same length as the original, same place (e.g if the original news was on the front page, the counterstatement has to be on the front page).

Anyone can come up with a counterstatement. For one to be effective, though, it would have to be an actual, fact-checked rebuttal.

In many cases a rebuttal might need only point out a factual error, so it wouldn't need to be the same length or "equally presented."
On the other hand, rebutting a Gish galloped piece full of falsehoods, innuendo, misinterpretation and logical errors might require a pretty long article.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I like the idea in theory, although I can see there would problems whenever someone has to make a judgment call as to whether it fits in with the definition of "news." News organizations used to be responsible enough to separate commentary from actual news.

They used to have the Fairness Doctrine before it was done away with under Reagan.

What I find interesting is that despite having a system which guarantees a Free Press, Free Speech, and a free market economic system, there doesn't appear to be all that much competition when it comes to the mainstream media. They're all basically clones of each other, even if Fox News is often singled out as some kind of "black sheep" among the media.

I think this is how the news should be:

The reason I included a financial cost to the network and its advertisers is exactly because I want the advertisers to come down hard on media sources they pay for who spew “commentary”.
Just the facts, ma’am.

Yes. Reagan not only did away with the Fairness Doctrine (one of his most injurious wounds to America), but he also declared that the airways were not free and open to everyone, but could be bought with $$$$. The immediate result was Murdoch and others snatching up all the stations.

All those papers and movies and news stations that we all see today are in large part owned by roughly five old white conservative men. Even MSNBC and other “left-wing” sources.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I like the idea in theory. But in the current sad state of affairs, this is what we have to deal with:

View attachment 41457

Remember this video?

Sadly, in the last few days, it has gotten a LOT worse.
New Voice of America Chief Is a Wrecking Ball

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The freedom of the press is paramount; almost as much as the freedom of speech. However “News” is a more recent invention. News has an obligation to tell only the truth: sticking solely to the facts without bias, fear, or favor.

I am curious how other forum members would think of this and what suggestions you might have for this.

If someone were to propose a new federal bill that would in no way compromise the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but would put a restriction on what it is to be defined as “News”, with regulations and punishments for claiming to be News when you were actually not.

My thoughts run along the lines of allowing networks/stations/shows to have the title “NEWS” on the screen while their reporter(s) do their thing on air. But, if your broadcasting is shown to be over a certain number of falsehoods/mistakes/lies per month (I would say 1 or more times), then you would have the title “NEWS” stripped from your broadcast, and a big rolling pink logo on your screen would read “BIASED PROPOGANDA, LIES, AND INNUENDO” until such time as you spent at least an entire 24hour broadcast day (without advertisements) wailing and denouncing your lies on air, at cost to your company and your advertisers, decrying what was wrong about your statements and announcing the facts, along with your sincere apologies.
Errors can be caught and thoroughly corrected with apologies (made large and unmissable - i.e. during your busiest hours) in order to prevent having your NEWS title stripped.

You still have the right to spew whatever factless, deceitful drivel that you want. You can even buy a whole network to do so. But you will not have the privilege of calling yourself NEWS if you do.


So, what do you think? What do you think advertisers would think?

I'm not sure you're suggested approach is practical, but I think the general idea and thrust makes sense.
When reading a newspaper here, there are rules around how advertisements can be presented, else they need to be clearly marked (to stop advertisements dressing themselves up as 'news').
Similarly, you could allow broadcasts to show 'News' or 'Editorial' depending if they were just reporting facts, or if they were offering comment, and persuasive opinion.

Like I said, don't see it as practical, but if it could be made so, I'd consider supporting this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Good idea.

Alternative law: every person or group who feels to be lied about or misrepresented has the right to publish a counterstatement in the same paper / on the same show. The counterstatement should be equally presented, same length as the original, same place (e.g if the original news was on the front page, the counterstatement has to be on the front page).

Ooof...you're not serious here, are you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The reason I included a financial cost to the network and its advertisers is exactly because I want the advertisers to come down hard on media sources they pay for who spew “commentary”.
Just the facts, ma’am.

Yes. Reagan not only did away with the Fairness Doctrine (one of his most injurious wounds to America), but he also declared that the airways were not free and open to everyone, but could be bought with $$$$. The immediate result was Murdoch and others snatching up all the stations.

All those papers and movies and news stations that we all see today are in large part owned by roughly five old white conservative men. Even MSNBC and other “left-wing” sources.

If it makes you feel better, Murdoch and others have done EXACTLY the same thing in Australia.
Hmmm...strikes me that might not actually make you feel better.
But there it is.

In fact, we're probably even worse off than you guys. So at least you get to say 'Hey, could be worse. We could be like Australia', in this case.

FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media ownership concentration one of the highest in the world?

 

[Stevicus]

The reason I included a financial cost to the network and its advertisers is exactly because I want the advertisers to come down hard on media sources they pay for who spew “commentary”.
Just the facts, ma’am.

Yes. Reagan not only did away with the Fairness Doctrine (one of his most injurious wounds to America), but he also declared that the airways were not free and open to everyone, but could be bought with $$$$. The immediate result was Murdoch and others snatching up all the stations.

All those papers and movies and news stations that we all see today are in large part owned by roughly five old white conservative men. Even MSNBC and other “left-wing” sources.

Another thing that came about was the "infomercial," which ruined television for insomniacs everywhere.

 

[Stevicus]

I think news organizations should pledge to avoid using opinions altogether when they report the news. LIke, when TV meteorologists say "it's going to be a beautiful day," that's just their opinion. They don't need to say it's a beautiful day. They should just give the stats, temperature, wind speed, barometric pressure, probability of precipitation, etc. Just the facts.

Same with sports reportage. Instead of saying "That was a great pass," they should just recite the basic facts - how many yards, speed of the ball, and other relevant stats, but no opinions.

The voices of the commentators should be monotone. No inflections or any sign of emotion. Same for anyone they interview or show on the news. I never liked it when they show people having an emotional breakdown, like someone upset and crying after their house has been destroyed in a tornado. Why do they feel the need to show that stuff? All they have to do is just say there was a tornado.

 

[Heyo]

Ooof...you're not serious here, are you?

As serious as the countries who already have a right of reply:

Right of reply - Wikipedia

 

[Heyo]

I’m not so certain about that one. What if I have done an extensive investigative journalist piece on some scandal inside one multi-billion dollar industry, and it goes front page. I’ve and my new station have invested months into the investigation.

What if a competitor of that multi-billion dollar industry has paid you to write that smear campaign?

The next day the CEO of the company and all of his lawyers get to put up an equal splash in the eyes of the public without evidence or punishment for lying.
Maybe. But, it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

The right to reply already exists in some countries. Right of reply - Wikipedia Just look how it's formulated there and how it's working out.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As serious as the countries who already have a right of reply:

Right of reply - Wikipedia

No...
It's not the concept of a right of reply I have issue with. It's your comment that every person or group who 'feels' to be lied to should have it.
Yuck.

Factual misrepresentation only.

 

[Heyo]

No...
It's not the concept of a right of reply I have issue with. It's your comment that every person or group who 'feels' to be lied to should have it.
Yuck.

Factual misrepresentation only.

Alternative law: every person or group who feels to be lied about or misrepresented

Lied about, not lied to. Important distinction.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

What if a competitor of that multi-billion dollar industry has paid you to write that smear campaign?

......

They are of course free to publish their rebuttal in any press source they like.
But my initial story, and their rebuttal would have to be thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication.
And if I took money to smear someone, then my job and my company’s financial survival are on the line. The scandalous CEO risks nothing.
This of course is how the conservative politicians and press have gotten so far with zealot followers and billions in cash. Fast-talk. Con-jobs. Spin out lies faster than researchers can verify or deny them. And when they do show that the media was lying, just skate off in a different direction so that nobody pays attention.

“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain.​