Maybe the reason some don’t trust the government to filter people, happens to be same reason others don’t trust them to filter information.
Unless you do not consider licensing to be a filtering process. I doubt many would by into that position.
Yes, that’s a filter! You cannot offer your plumbing services for sale without a license, or being supervised by someone with a license. That vastly restricts the quantity of plumbers to go around, and therefore increases the price they can get for their services. It is a barrier to competition and I don’t agree with it either.
But there’s no first amendment right to be a plumber. There is a first amendment right to a free press. One restriction is much more onerous to a free society than the other.
Yes, but you are not restricted to using a Licensed Plumber. Like I said, you can give your neighbor $20 to fix you toilet, if you want. Under my plan, no one is restricted from publishing whatever they want. They just can’t label it as “News” without a license. The press is still as free as ever.
Let’s try another comparison. You need a license to practice medicine. You don not have to be Board Certified. When you choose a Board Certified doctor, this is an additional assurance of quality. Same with the News license.
That would require journalists to be objective. And what are the odds of that?
Nevermind
Count to 50? Know the alphabet?
I have an idea; rather than trusting the government to approve news stories or news sources, you pick news sources that you trust and rely on them. Perhaps you feel that Fox News is generally accurate, so you rely on them for the fair and balanced news you’ve come to expect. Me, I find that the New York Times has all the news that’s fit to print, so I rely on it. Mind you, both of these sources (and plenty of others) have reported false stories or incomplete ones, but I think it’s better to make your own judgment as to the reliability of a particular source than to expect the government to make it for you.
If instead you read unsourced stories on Facebook or Twitter and act upon them, it’s your own damned fault.
While it would be a tad comical to see how many (would-be) voters failed one or both tests, I could only see bad end results here, as each side appends requirements it thinks will shape the electorate to its advantage
This idea is so bad, it should be inducted into the Hall of Fame of Very Bad Ideas.
The American news organizations (even including Fox News) accurately reported the fact that Clinton was ahead in all of the polls, and then they accurately reported the fact that Trump won the election anyway. To what failure are you referring?
Sure, it is best to identify your preferred trusted news sources. The problem I’m trying to address here, as stated in the first post is “fake news”, which can be indistinguishable from “real” news.
Also, I still why so many here have characterized this idea as " trusting the government to approve news stories or news sources". They don’t approve the stories. They just verify that the site generally provides factual information. Again, they are not verifying the “truth” of the stories, they are just verifying that the
events reported actually happened. Did this person actually make this statement?
Did this event actually occur?
Finally, you are ignoring the larger picture. When a large number of misinformed people take action based on that information, like, say–voting for president, it can affect a large number of people, including you and me.
I don’t think the people that are currently using whatever-memes-their-friends-and-family-post-on-Facebook as a news source are going to pay much attention to whether it got the .gov seal of approval anyways. And anyone smart enough to look for the “licensed news” is probably smart enough to avoid Facebook memes, or at least treat them with skepticism.
In other words, I don’t think this will fix the problem.
Are you reading what you just wrote? You say one thing and then completely contradict yourself in the next sentence. Who is going to verify that events happened? Who is going to do the reporting to verify that statements match what was printed? There is literally no way to do what you want without creating a full blown Ministry of Truth, and it’s completely contrary to the freedom of the press.
I do not want journalism or “news media” to be subject to licensing or to a trade guild accreditation system or an officially sanctioned Factual Truth Inspection Service. Because ISTM that makes it easier to co-opt or cow the whole sector at once rather than having to go one by one. Having the state do it is a nonstarter and having a private accrediting association do it *without state backing() would be a mess since someone could always just start *another *accrediting association.
20 years ago a number of newspeople here were clamoring for a mandatory “collegiation” (vetting by a private accrediting association) to call yourself a journalist to be legislated, but it became evident after a bit that at the time it was in order to close the shop and lock up access to the press credentials at official events, so the emergent New Media sector as well as independent informers fought it off.
(*The US relies on private accrediting consortia for vetting colleges, but they are in turn recognized and supported by the Department of Education wielding the cudgel of financial aid eligibility. And you don’t have a constitutional right to run a college)
I don’t think making the term “News” available only as a license is the way to go, but I think having people that are qualified and licensed on the basis of adhering to a high level of intellectual rigour in the pursuit of reporting events is not a bad idea; something along the lines of Robert Heinlein’s Fair Witness:
[A fair witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A fair witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. A photographic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.
In Heinlein’s society, a fair witness is an absolutely reputable source of information. By custom, a fair witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.
A fair witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.](http://dlkphotography.com/fair-witness/stranger-in-a-strange-land)
It wouldn’t mean that other journalists are barred from reporting, or that media as a whole be under the control of a government agency, it would mean that if one of these Fair Witnesses puts down something in an article there would be a great level of confidence that something is accurate and unbiased.
Whether or not a news organization would choose to use such people would be up to them, I would hope they’d find them a valuable asset if they want to present themselves as a reliable source of information.
Also, what HE said. Those who bite for clickbait are not and will not be looking for any seal of accreditation, other than “it sounds right to me”, or “what do you expect from THOSE people”.
Here’so an interesting example of the controversy this would engender:
I suspect there are quite a few here that would dispute the label of ‘fake news’ for the Trump-wants-to-start-a-Muslim-registry story.
As someone who’s actually a qualified and experienced journalist, this proposal is problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it’s entirely possible to report just the facts and still be biased - for example, if a research study shows 60% of people like cats, then you could report that fact, or its corrollary - 40% people of people surveyed do not like cats. Both are true, but you’re presenting a different (but still technically correct and factual) slant on the same information.
Secondly, who decides what’s “news”? I’m not a fan of “Here’s what some reality TV star did at the weekend” entertainment news, but it’s extremely popular and brings in those all-important views and ad revenue.
One of the challenges facing modern journalism is many people regard Serious Journalism as extremely boring and won’t pay for it or support it. Ad revenues are in freefall and very few organisations have worked out what to do about it or how to solve the conundrum.
Fake news is problematic, but having an official “This Is News” seal on an outlet is also problematic (“news” according to whom?); and that’s without getting into people setting up sites in Elbonia which purport to be from the US or wherever - or the issues with the government deciding they don’t like the news an outlet is reporting and cancelling their accreditation.
I agree with all of your points, and have already conceded that this does not prevent bias in reporting. The intent is not to provide a perfect solution, but to make some effort to reestablish a stronger connection between the terms “news” and “facts”.
I also concede that this idea will probably not solve the problem of widespread misinformation, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed, somehow.
This problem has always existed, but is amplified by the prevalence of the internet. I’m hoping someone comes up with a better solution.
What happens when the government and a news outlet disagrees on the facts? Like whether or not a country has a secret WMD program.