Well, she does read all the newspapers.
Because Fox is the most obvious and egregious case, with the most viewers, most extreme bias, and the most harm to be done.
And this Federal Bureau of Truth should create a language that is more precise than everyday English.
I’ve found many just as egregious and extreme cases in MSNBC and CNN as I have in Fox News. All media is biased in this country. But that is for another thread, per tom’s comments.
There are lawful penalties outside of arrest which wouldn’t violate the debate clause.
So you complain about their arguments from assertion with one of your own, then state that debating any of the facts (or “facts”) is not what this thread is about.
Yeah.
Ok, so I’ll play - what about all the lies and distortions we get from politicians of both (or all) parties at just about every level? You hate Fox News, and that’s fine - but whant about when politicans lie to us - should they face sanction as well?
Such as?
Anything that’s not arrest or detention. Fines. Expulsion. Public whipping. And so forth.
Publicly whipping someone without arresting or detaining them would be kinda weird.
They are free to leave and the whipper is free to follow.
Although, that might cause some tourism. After all, wouldn’t you travel to see a man with a whip chasing some Congress persons down Pennsylvania Avenue?
Could you please provide cites that demonstrate that FoxNews is biased in ways that MSNBC, CBS, etc., are not?
Feel free to read thru this thread to see what kind of evidence you will need. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, do you think any other news source would ever stoop so low as to photoshop pictures of people they don’t like to make them look ugly?
I refer you to:
Personally, I see nothing objectionable in theory about the basic concept behind Truth in Advertising laws being applied to broadcast media.
In practice, there are a few problems. For instance: False advertising is handled by the FTC. Do we really want to put a federal department in charge of challenging media when it’s lying? If not, who’s going to handle that? How do we ensure that they challenge all false information equally, and don’t ignore lies which are convenient for the government?
If it can reasonably be argued that:
a) It is a lie that influences public policy opinion and
b) it can be shown that there is no excuse for them to have it wrong (i.e. a politician could get away with saying something when they don’t know, but if they’ve previously been personally corrected by a major economist or something they couldn’t)
Then yes. They should.
On preview, it appears tomndebb is disallowing fact-based argumentation in this thread. So never mind, I guess.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s wrong with you? He’s not saying you can’t argue with facts, he’s saying that the debate is about how and whether to punish people who say or write untrue things.
Whether Fox News is an example of an organization that regularly lies or tells the truth is irrelevant to the debate. Yeah, I’m sure plenty of people have in mind some particular target or other for the Ministry of Truth. So what?
Whether Fox News are lying liars is not the point of the debate. We’ve had 593 threads about Fox News and whether or not they are lying liars. If you want to start another one go start another one.
Or Russian. We could call it Pravda (“truth” in Russian) to which I was attempting a satirical reference.
Oh. The Russians. I thought you were referencing 1984. 
I don’t really see how the number of people a message reaches has any bearing on the responsibility to be honest. I think the whole concept of honesty scales quite well from one-to-one to one-to-many speech. In the case of one-to-one, we choose individual people to have around us, and we choose them based on various reasons. For most of us, honesty is probably at least part of the reason why we choose to surround ourselves with certain people, but we also surround ourselves with people who agree with us, or maybe even knowingly lie to us. Frankly, sometimes honesty sucks, but ultimately we choose to have honest people in our lives by continuing to have relationships with them or to reduce or end them.
The media is the same way. We choose our sources of news, entertainment, or whatever based on similar sorts of values. And when it comes to mass-media, their primary motivation, rightly or wrongly, isn’t to give unbiased news, it’s to maximize their profits by maximizing their audience, and this means telling them what they want to hear. Sometimes this means being brutally honest, but more often, it means telling it to them in a way that’s consistent with their world views. And we decide which media is popular by voting with our eyes, ears, and wallets.
As far as enforcing with government, I think that’s a bad idea, because it’s a ultimately a social/cultural issue. Worse, how can we even meaningfully enforce it in a way that’s fair to all of the views? Rather, I think we have to hold a significant part of the responsibility to demand more from our media. Right now, though, I think we’re still trying to figure out how this whole 24-hour news cycle works, differentiating between the opinion and commentary shows that some people treat as news and just the straight news. The thing is, generally the opinion and commentary shows are where most of the bias is but are also more entertaining, so it ends up skewing everything.