The term “News” is publically regulated, in that you can’t call yourself a news channel at will. You may be disqualified and not be able to describe your self that way.
I have noticed though, that channels which are not news channels, and can’t be called that in the US, have started calling others, that I think are legitimate news channels, “Fake news.”
Should there be a public cost or punishment?
Yes, anyone who uses the term “fake news” to refer to legitimate news channels should be impeached.
Is the term “news” actually publicly regulated in the United States? Are there any laws or regulations about what can or cannot be called “news channels” in the United States?
I’m pretty sure the answer to both those questions is “no” (with the caveat that over-the-air broadcast TV and radio channels are subject to more regulations than cable channels).
So, anyone have a cite for the assertions in the OP that in the United States there is some kind of legal regulation of what programming can or cannot be called “news”, or who can or cannot call themselves a “news channel”?
(And I personally loathe Fox News, and do not remotely consider them to be a trustworthy reporter of news.)
There should be a public cost, in that the public should hold accountable agencies that put out false information.
As far as accountability imposed by the government? That’s a scary proposition, considering the people in charge of the govt right now.
And I do not know that it is the case that I cannot put together my own youtube channel, or public access show, or even smoke signals in morse code, and call it a news channel. It may be that the FCC has rules about it for shows that are broadcast on the airwaves, and qualifications they need to call themselves news, but most media is not actually carried that way anymore.
Definitely not. Freedom of speech is one of the most important pillars of democracy. It should be protected even when it is being abused. If people are lying or making false accusations, the best solutions are to tell the truth and vote the liars out of power.
On a more practical matter if you open the door on regulating speech, the reality is that no matter how good the initial intentions are, we will end up having speech regulated by the people in power in ways that support their interests. If we had laws that prohibited the use of terms like “fake news”, the Trump administration would be using those laws to close down media outlets that are delivering what they declare is “fake news”.
Who do you suppose we should assign to run the Truth Police?
I join MEBruckner in calling “cite”.
That doesn’t seem to have affected The Onion (“America’s Finest News Source”). 
There are a slew of “news” outlets that in varying degrees present highly dubious or outright false stories in pursuit of political or economic objectives. In the case of “Natural News”, that bastion of conspiracy-mongering and quackery, there’s an overt political message as well as an overriding goal of making money off suckers.
So the real question is, do we want to ban all websites and other outlets that claim to offer “news” but have a really poor track record in providing accurate information? Where do we draw the line? Is it sub-90% accuracy, sub-50% or Hardly Ever Right? What if there’s a pundit/blogger who typically posts crap, but every once in a while has a line on something real? Do we start censoring message boards in which there are commonly threads promoting nonsense?*
Short of libel, slander and direct threats to individuals or public safety, we should err on the side of free expression, as painful as it is to those of us who Know The Truth.
*not singling anyone out. :rolleyes:
OK, my mistake.
We’re not going to do well.
We’ll do a lot better than countries that attempt to control what people say. You are essentially trying to regulate criticism of media sources. Can you not see how that could go horribly wrong?
We’ll do a lot better than countries that attempt to control what people say. You are essentially trying to regulate criticism of media sources. Can you not see how that could go horribly wrong?
Yes we could be redundant.
There is a limited amount of the broadcast spectrum available so the government, via the FCC, regulates who gets to broadcast. Television stations are required to have a license and demonstrate that they will use their portion of the spectrum in a manner that benefits the public interest.
I don’t know if there’s an official requirement that television stations broadcast the news but I think it’s one the criteria used to determine if a specific station is using its license well. So stations are strongly motivated to broadcast news coverage.
So what constitutes news coverage? I believe there are FCC regulations which limit what a broadcast network can call “news”. For example, CBS could not not call broadcasting episodes of Survivor news reporting. But can a network broadcast a sports event and call it news coverage? Regular news shows report on sporting events. I don’t think this is allowed but I’ll admit I can’t find the relevant regulations online.
One thing I did find is that the FCC does regulate the broadcasting of news which is a hoax. That seems pretty close to a “fake news” standard. But top avoid the appearance of censorship, the definition of what constitutes a hoax is narrow; the station had to know what it was presenting as news was false, it had to foresee that its false information as news would cause public harm, and actual substantial harm had to result.
Are you claiming that there is no high-ranking figure in the American government who attempts to control what the media says about him on a regular basis?
Why would you start a thread in Great Debates based on a false premise?
The problem is that cable isn’t broadcasting. So spreading hoaxes is ok now.
Broadcast standards were around so long (for boomers for instance) that we forgot how vulnerable we might be in another set of facts.
And who do you think should possibly be put in charge of what YOU call “Regulating” its use? Let me guess… You or Someone LIKE you?
Why do so many liberals nowadays want to control what everyone can say ( and do to a big extent - ( except when a woman wants to kill her unborn kid ))
No. Your thoughts, and ideas and skill at communication should be plenty enough to combat incorrect claims of “Fake News”. It will also help if your media would get out of bed with their favorite politicians and begin “Just Reporting” the news instead of trying to steer the narrative.
Thanks for your post. I just got BINGO on my “ridiculous conservative responses” bingo card.
One scandal rag calls itself news. The other calls it’s opponent “fake news”. This is literally as old as the United States (and, of course, much older).
Hamilton founded the New York Post pretty much to attack Jefferson. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,” Jefferson replied.
The amazing thing is it’s actually OUR JOB to figure out what is true and what is not true. If the citizenry is not up to that task then you pretty much can’t have a republic.
We have never seen a major tv network call another one fake news. Ever. And we are not the americans of 1840. We have been lulled into sleep by the fairness doctrine which we thought was forever and came from God. But really it was just a window.