We can’t say “fuck” on the Radio or Broadcast Television, and the Supreme Court has said that’s ok. The Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supremes also.
I can see problems with the Fairness Doctrine, and the Equal Time Rule. What’s fair? What if an issue has more than two sides? But I can’t see any good argument for allowing the deliberate broadcasting of lies on broadcast news. If our citizens are being deliberately misinformed, democracy can’t function properly.
There’s the First Amendment issue. But the main problem - and this was the main topic of the thread I linked to earlier - is in the implementation. Who gets to decide what a lie is? Are you comfortable with the Federal Communications Commission determining what’s true and what isn’t on complex issues, and who is incorrect and who is lying? I think you can almost guarantee the decisions would be based on the political orientations of the FCC directors.
That’s probably not the best argument to make. There is market for everything no matter how insane, bizarre, or hateful. That doesn’t mean that the market should dictate everything. One of the functions of any good government is to make sure that it represents the views of the broad majority while ensuring the rights of the minority. In this case they aren’t restricting the right to free speech, they are restricting access to a specific medium. Pointedly the one that the broadest numbers of citizens use daily. As you pointed out, there really is no way to eliminate access to the material completely, but in this case it seems that the government is simply saying: “Not on our airwaves.” I can only assume that is because they find that only a small minority is interested in this type of programming, and they find it has little factual value when compared to the trouble it generates. If they want it they can watch online, via satellite, etc.. I think that is a reasonable solution.
If the broadcast networks disagree with the FCC’s rulings, I say let them take it to a jury of 12 average citizens. If the jury thoroughly reviews the facts, and finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the broadcaster made a false claim, or a claim with reckless disregard for the truth, then that broadcaster has to suffer some penalty.
As long as they advertise what they broadcast as “News”, it should be held to a rigorous standard. If they want to broadcast bullshit and clearly label it as “Opinion”, then I’m fine with that. But there should be a very clear delineation between those two things.
I’m currently attending a Community College. If I write a term paper, and I’m caught making a false claims, I will probably get a big fat zero, or an F if I’m very lucky. I don’t see why a major broadcast network should be held to a lower standard than a college freshman!
I am constantly tickled by how easily lefties on these boards toss about the word “lies”. I’m left to ponder whether they really are so ignorant as to not know what the word means, or they do and that misusing it it just hunky-dory in their world. Then I realize that it doesn’t matter which of those two options is correct. The result is the same: :rolleyes:
In Canuckistan, news covers YOU!
Could you give us some examples of how you believe lefties misuse the word “lie”?
Simple fix: require “news” and “news entertainment” programming to go on separate stations. Keeps Faux from trotting out the line about how Fox & Friends or whoever isn’t hard news, but entertainment, whenever they get caught telling fibs (or MSNBC, if you prefer).
Fox can roll its hard news and Fox Business News programming into one channel, and Beck et al into another.
It’s easy to cry about “Free Speech” but I frame it as an issue of False Advertisement instead.
I’d require explicit disclaimers at the beginning of all “commentary” shows that the following statements are for entertainment, and don’t adhere to the Federal Truth In Broadcasting Law (or whatever we want to call it).
Kind of like how people are allowed to buy as much placebo herbal “medicines” as they like, as long as there’s a label on the bottle saying it’s not FDA approved to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Just look at the post I was responding to. Let’s say that what he was alluding to coming from Rush is even 100% wrong, do you really think that Rush knows it’s wrong? Believes it to be factually wrong, yet still decides to make statements counter to it? Ridiculous.
For something to be a “lie”, the statement uttered not only has to be wrong, but the person putting it forth has to know it to be wrong.
This is one of the reasons that you’re not allowed to accuse another poster of lying in GD.
Paying attention to Fox News just gives it more credibility.
Here in the U.S., The evening newscaston NBC gets 9 million viewers. ABC’s evening newscast gets about 8 million.
Meanwhile, the most watched program on Fox Newsis The *O’Reilly Factor *with 3.2 million.
However, American Idol is drawing almost 22 million viewers.
And more than twice as many people watch *Jersey Shore*than watch O’Reilly!
So Fox News’ most-watched program gets watched by about 1 percent of the people in the U.S. Banning it simply makes it appear bigger and stronger than it really is.
All right. How about I coin a new word to describe this phenomenon: Truthslaughter. It differs from lying in the same way murder differs from manslaughter. Truthslaughter is uttering a statement with reckless disregard for its veracity, where a reasonable person would have done fact checking beforehand.
You may want to consult Colbert. He’s better at that stuff. But here’s an idea, how about just saying the person is “wrong”, or that you think he is wrong? You’ll always be on solid ground and he’ll be on whatever ground he laid out for himself. I’ve argued quite a bit on these boards, passionately. I’ve laid into people with venom. But I think I may have called someone a liar 2 or 3 times. And those times I could point to why it was fair to call what they were saying a lie.
Being Wrong implies an honest mistake. What we are talking about though isn’t your uncle Larry, or your serious minded co-worker. They can be wrong all day long on anything, big or small. We are talking about media outlets that represent themselves as News; presenters of factual, researched information to the public. We expect that what we hear on these programs is a legitimate, accurate reporting of the facts. If a program is entertainment, then we can suspend that expectation and enjoy the ride knowing that we are in a world where things will be stretched, torn, or made up out of whole cloth.
In these “infotainment” programs (of any stripe), consumers have a blended presentation. There is no distinct line, and the facts are often spun hard, phrased oddly or ambiguously, and when “wrong” retractions are extremely brief. A four second “oops” sound bite isn’t much to the 45 minute editorial tirade they launched into the previous show. That tiny blip doesn’t eliminate all the memes, talking points, and spin they erroneously presented. I’m not certain being “wrong” is good enough linguistically or otherwise.
I absolutely hate the idea of the suppression of free speech, but I also strongly believe that you must be responsible for what you say. A news outlet is in a position of trust by the public. We trust that the “news” is accurate and factual and impartial. Irresponsible reporting packaged as “news” is dangerous speech, though I’m at a loss as to what, (if anything) we should do about it. The best I have to offer is the creation of strong definitions or guidelines for the separation of news and entertainment, and enforcement of disclaimers.
Well, we have no problem with the notion of false advertising.
The product should match the description on the box.
If you are selling “news” then that news needs to comport with the truth of what is happening. Deception and outright falsehoods should be punishable.
(bolding mine)
The problem with this suggestion is that the problem isn’t anyone’s views or opinions. The problem is that the “facts” presented to back up that opinion or view aren’t, in reality, facts.
Just an example.
Perhaps we could say “content” instead.
I’m shocked-do yo mean that “60 Minutes” doesn’t tell the truth?
And “netework news” and CNN don’t lie?
Shocked, I am!
Sure they do. They just don’t lie about political issues.