Of course there’s evidence, for each and every one of those propositions. I mean, it’s not good evidence. It wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, or to scientific peer review, or proper critical thinking. But then, under this proposal, it wouldn’t have to. It would simply be presented as The Truth by the official U.S. Government Truth Czar.
I remain utterly flabbergasted by posters arguing in favor of these proposals.
Would you honestly think these would be good ideas if they were proposed by the Trump administration? Do you honestly think it would be a good idea for Donald Trump’s administration to have an official Fake News Czar who’s full time job would be to denounce all of his critics as liars and conspiracy theorists, and present one-sided, unchallenged “evidence”? Do you honestly think it would be a good idea to enable President Trump to sue his critics for libel and slander?
Yeah, it’s a no-win situation. So? It’s not the U.S. government’s job to “win” arguments with its own citizens.
As I keep saying, I’m flabbergasted that you don’t see a problem with having an official U.S. government position who’s only job is call their own citizens liars.
I’m flabbergasted that you didn’t see my first post where I objected to such an office being created. What I am saying is that the alternative shouldn’t be letting all that lying crap go without any opposition whatsoever.
If I misread you, I apologize. I read that as saying that you thought such a position would be ineffectual, not that it’s objectionable in theory. I did see that post, but honestly I had completely forgotten it by the time I read your post that I responded to, since all of your other posts in this thread seem to be defending the idea of having an official “Fake News Czar.” If I’ve misread your position, again, I apologize.
So, if you agree a “Fake News Czar” is a bad idea, what exactly is your suggestion for the alternative to “letting all that lying crap go without any opposition whatsoever”?
A few of my responses involved the silly proposition that the OP’s idea was in any speech restriction, btw.
My suggest as to how to respond? When some of those bigger blowhards put out unsupported bullshit that starts getting passed along by other big blowhards, a simple official declaration that it is indeed unsupported bullshit should be released. No equivocation, no stalling, and no official Fake News Czar necessary.
I don’t think that’s silly at all. Having a government official who’s explicit job is to label their country’s own citizens liars at the very least would have a chilling effect on speech. The explicit purpose of such an office would be to intentionally chill speech the current administration disagrees with. It would just be supposedly aimed at “bad” speech.
Again, maybe I’m misreading you, but you don’t seem to have a problem with such a position on principle. You just don’t seem to think it’s the best tactical response. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me.
If I’m reading you right on that, then, yeah, flabbergasted.
The White House already has a Press Secretary. Every department has its own press office/public relations staff/spokesperson. So does just about every government agency. What exactly are you advocating for that’s different from the status quo? Just that those press offices should be more aggressive in issuing press releases every time a wingnut makes a ridiculous assertion?
I honestly did not consider the cost of the position, but I’m sure many would do it for free. Just like any other post that serves “at the pleasure of the president”, it would be obvious who this position serves. Of course, the targeted fake news outlets will attempt to convert it to their advantage using their usual methods, but they’ve already fully tapped that well. My point is that there is a chance that a regular fact-based response to combat mis-information might trigger at least a few of his base to flip. Even 1% could be the difference between progress vs. regress with respect to the future of our country.
Why would the position need to be “at the pleasure of the president”
Is the US not capable of drawing up some form of objective qualifications and then removing the position from direct presidential oversight and approval?
The main problem with this proposal is that with a mere change of administration after 2024 we’ll be back to where we were the last 4 years, only now it will be giving standing as the Official National Fact Checker to, say Sarah Huckabee. So no, no Official National Fact Checker, please.
I suppose that is as far as could be realistically done, and it would make sense if the person or institution that deals with some specific area of expertise (e.g. CDC for epidemiology, Fed/Treasury for banking, etc.) is the one that does the heavy lifting – in each department or agency have whatever is the main advisory body be tasked to providing the leadership and the WH Press Sec with the backing documentation (both in detail and in idiot-resistant bites) to go out and state why this latest wingnut outburst just wrong. But again, a mere change of administration simply reverses this with the stroke of a pen.
That is, they are resolving that it should be something that should be a government function, because they believe it would increase the overall happiness and prosperity of the nation. You are free to disagree, but I think they have given their reasons why its important. Not everyone will agree, but you can’t simply ask why something should be the case right after people have given their arguments in favor of it. You need to point out how this can be better done by the private sector, or show why it’s unconstitutional, or simply show that it’s a bad idea. You cannot simply say “I don’t like your reasons.” and expect to get anywhere. And yet, that’s all you seem to ever do…
I think it comes from the terminology used in the question – so far all the “[insert issue here] Czar” positions have been so, most IIRC by direct creation within the EOP, others as an agency or commission head.
But the creation of such a position as you describe, to be given official government status, would have to happen through a law. And what one Congress passes, another Congress can amend or repeal or allow to sunset without renewing. See for example the Special Independent Counsel. Or simply defund for real, dropping the budget to zero.