I definitely think that it ought to be illegal to lie by intent or negligence on any news or informational program, or any program that could be mistaken as a news or informational program that does not have a disclaimer.
Except that once you go down this road, you start needing a legal definition of what is a news program and what isn't, and for that matter, what constitutes lying. In the current media environment I wouldn't be surprised if you wound up with zero "news" programs.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Gah, this thread made me think about Fox news again. They should have their right to free speech revoked.
Yeah, no. Even though I hate them.
Didn't they win a lawsuit a few years back to the effect that the "News" is not required to contain "Facts"?
If I was going to draw the "free speech ends here" line (and I'm not willing to, personally), odds are Fox News would already be on the others side of it.
I definitely think that it ought to be illegal to lie by intent or negligence on any news or informational program, or any program that could be mistaken as a news or informational program that does not have a disclaimer.
It's damaging to both consumers AND non-consumers. It's like shooting fire in a crowded theater, which causes me to get trampled five miles away. I don't give a shit if people self-destruct (unless they ask for help), but I despise it when they try to bring me for the ride to hell.
You really want to make it illegal to lie in the news? Really?
So, like, a newscaster reports something unflattering about the government, and they can not only say "Nuh-uh!" they can also now fine you or arrest you for false reporting?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Gah, this thread made me think about Fox news again. They should have their right to free speech revoked.
Yeah, no. Even though I hate them.
Didn't they win a lawsuit a few years back to the effect that the "News" is not required to contain "Facts"?
If I was going to draw the "free speech ends here" line (and I'm not willing to, personally), odds are Fox News would already be on the others side of it.
I definitely think that it ought to be illegal to lie by intent or negligence on any news or informational program, or any program that could be mistaken as a news or informational program that does not have a disclaimer.
It's damaging to both consumers AND non-consumers. It's like shooting fire in a crowded theater, which causes me to get trampled five miles away. I don't give a shit if people self-destruct (unless they ask for help), but I despise it when they try to bring me for the ride to hell.
You really want to make it illegal to lie in the news? Really?
So, like, a newscaster reports something unflattering about the government, and they can not only say "Nuh-uh!" they can also now fine you or arrest you for false reporting?
If it can be proven that it is incorrect and that the one making the claim was aware of the information that proves it to be incorrect.
And in the mean time, the government has carte blanche to legally harass the news organization.
News stations blatantly lying is a bad thing, but government suppression of the media is a lot badder.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Gah, this thread made me think about Fox news again. They should have their right to free speech revoked.
Yeah, no. Even though I hate them.
Didn't they win a lawsuit a few years back to the effect that the "News" is not required to contain "Facts"?
If I was going to draw the "free speech ends here" line (and I'm not willing to, personally), odds are Fox News would already be on the others side of it.
I definitely think that it ought to be illegal to lie by intent or negligence on any news or informational program, or any program that could be mistaken as a news or informational program that does not have a disclaimer.
It's damaging to both consumers AND non-consumers. It's like shooting fire in a crowded theater, which causes me to get trampled five miles away. I don't give a shit if people self-destruct (unless they ask for help), but I despise it when they try to bring me for the ride to hell.
You really want to make it illegal to lie in the news? Really?
So, like, a newscaster reports something unflattering about the government, and they can not only say "Nuh-uh!" they can also now fine you or arrest you for false reporting?
If it is a provable lie, sure. I don't really see a social benefit to allow people to lie while claiming to be delivering news anymore than I see a social benefit to sell snake oil while claiming to be delivering a panacea. People who want to spout bullshit can put their "This program is not a news program and may contain information not properly verified or true," disclaimer on, just like herbal supplements are not intended to treat or prevent any specific disease.
Gah, this thread made me think about Fox news again. They should have their right to free speech revoked.
Yeah, no. Even though I hate them.
Didn't they win a lawsuit a few years back to the effect that the "News" is not required to contain "Facts"?
If I was going to draw the "free speech ends here" line (and I'm not willing to, personally), odds are Fox News would already be on the others side of it.
I definitely think that it ought to be illegal to lie by intent or negligence on any news or informational program, or any program that could be mistaken as a news or informational program that does not have a disclaimer.
It's damaging to both consumers AND non-consumers. It's like shooting fire in a crowded theater, which causes me to get trampled five miles away. I don't give a shit if people self-destruct (unless they ask for help), but I despise it when they try to bring me for the ride to hell.
You really want to make it illegal to lie in the news? Really?
So, like, a newscaster reports something unflattering about the government, and they can not only say "Nuh-uh!" they can also now fine you or arrest you for false reporting?
If it is a provable lie, sure. I don't really see a social benefit to allow people to lie while claiming to be delivering news anymore than I see a social benefit to sell snake oil while claiming to be delivering a panacea. People who want to spout bullshit can put their "This program is not a news program and may contain information not properly verified or true," disclaimer on, just like herbal supplements are not intended to treat or prevent any specific disease.
People sell snake oil and say untruthful things on the news all the time. The government doesn't put a stop to it because government intervention is pretty much the worst of all the remedies in most cases.
edit: the point is that within a week every show would have that disclaimer, because no media organization would be willing to defend itself against a parade of charges of falsehood. See: Rather, Dan.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Now, wait. I'm not so sure about the whole "news must be true" law, but there already are some regulations in this direction. Libel and slander could be used if the news was deceptive about certain people couldn't it? As for businesses, there are class action lawsuits regarding deceptive marketing and products all the damn time. It's not usually a criminal charge, but a civil regulation is still a law.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Now, wait. I'm not so sure about the whole "news must be true" law, but there already are some regulations in this direction. Libel and slander could be used if the news was deceptive about certain people couldn't it? As for businesses, there are class action lawsuits regarding deceptive marketing and products all the damn time. It's not usually a criminal charge, but a civil regulation is still a law.
Its civil law and you have to prove specific damage.
Deceptive marketing laws are basically an offshoot of contract law, where an informal contract is made at the purchase but one side did not live up to the bargain.
Libel and slander are in the same vein as vandalism, ones public image is a property with value and any damage done to that image can be recouped if damage is proven.
Its civil law and you have to prove specific damage.
Deceptive marketing laws are basically an offshoot of contract law, where an informal contract is made at the purchase but one side did not live up to the bargain.
Libel and slander are in the same vein as vandalism, ones public image is a property with value and any damage done to that image can be recouped if damage is proven.
Sure, so wouldn't the latter at least theoretically be viable. I mean, image is everything to a politician. If the media really managed to convince a sufficient number of people that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist, wouldn't that in theory be grounds for a suit?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
Which is why they took every effort to bury Reverend Wright, the 'controversy' with Rezko, the secret muslim crap, this chick, Ayers, &c. rather than devoting any time to it at all.
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
You think they were really easy on Obama? Really? Were you paying attention?
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
You think they were really easy on Obama? Really? Were you paying attention?
I don't think they were "easy" on him, but there was tons more coverage of obama then there was Mcain/palin.
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
Yeah, there was a lot of bias. Toward ratings. Like all the stupid coverage of the stupid non-issues Obama had to deal with. Palin's coverage was at least about things that really did demonstrate how awful she is.
Lets be honest, as much as you guys have it on for Obama, the media was very obviously in favor of him, and took every chance they could to make Palin look awful.
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
You think they were really easy on Obama? Really? Were you paying attention?
I don't think they were "easy" on him, but there was tons more coverage of obama then there was Mcain/palin.
They devoted time to actually showing an entire Palin rally in full for no real apparent reason other than hoping to catch some more stupid gaffes (from her or the crowd) live. If anything, towards the end McCain/Palin was getting a lot more coverage than they would have wanted because it kept exposing some of the utter stupid that was the last few weeks of the campaign spent in 'real' America with Joe the [job title].
Sarah Palin really didn't need any help from the media to look bad. When you can't handle an interview with fucking Katie Couric you really just aren't ready for a national office.
Just compare Palin's Couric interview with Obama's O'Reily interview. People whined about how it was the media's fault for the perception of Palin's performance, but Obama takes on Bill O'Reily and gets a "yeah, I guess he's an ok guy" out of him and nobody mentions it.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
Most of it tends to explain how it has affected the model of the usual radio station. How it affects the model of the normal local television channel. How it affects the model of the usual local newspaper. It is less mentioned in the textbooks how this changes the actual culture or coverage obtained as far as profit-bias goes, but it is extensively discussed in class, for sure.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
That has not been my experience.
It has been mine. The only exceptions were history texts.
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
Most of it tends to explain how it has affected the model of the usual radio station. How it affects the model of the normal local television channel. How it affects the model of the usual local newspaper. It is less mentioned in the textbooks how this changes the actual culture or coverage obtained as far as profit-bias goes, but it is extensively discussed in class, for sure.
That's essentially the reasoning behind the profit-bias. All the fancy tech shit we the public demand now is expensive and more difficult to learn how to build/maintain/operate. But media bias extends beyond journalism, the profit-bias is built into almost all media at this point. In some regions of the field it goes so far as to almost be censorship by the market (as opposed to by a government).
The textbook wouldn't be likely to mention the one bias the media does have. That bias isn't politically motivated anyway, though. Profit-bias.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
That has not been my experience.
It has been mine. The only exceptions were history texts.
Even math textbooks? Well, OK, I guess they took out the canibalization of 9 by 7.
My problem with the whole "media bias" thing is that it's gotten news stations to not only present both sides of the argument, but both sides of the facts as well.
My problem with the whole "media bias" thing is that it's gotten news stations to not only present both sides of the argument, but both sides of the facts as well.
The analogy that new stations have one person on to say it's raining outside and another to say it isn't, when the reporter should be able to stick their head out the door and see for themselves.
Cervetus on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I remember during the Anna Nicole Smith coverage a lot of people were complaining how much the media was focusing on it, but the response was "lol free market, they're just giving the people what they want," then a survey revealed most people were sick of it. The media gives what keeps it alive, but they aren't exactly maximizing their viewership.
Posts
Except that once you go down this road, you start needing a legal definition of what is a news program and what isn't, and for that matter, what constitutes lying. In the current media environment I wouldn't be surprised if you wound up with zero "news" programs.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You really want to make it illegal to lie in the news? Really?
So, like, a newscaster reports something unflattering about the government, and they can not only say "Nuh-uh!" they can also now fine you or arrest you for false reporting?
If it can be proven that it is incorrect and that the one making the claim was aware of the information that proves it to be incorrect.
News stations blatantly lying is a bad thing, but government suppression of the media is a lot badder.
If it is a provable lie, sure. I don't really see a social benefit to allow people to lie while claiming to be delivering news anymore than I see a social benefit to sell snake oil while claiming to be delivering a panacea. People who want to spout bullshit can put their "This program is not a news program and may contain information not properly verified or true," disclaimer on, just like herbal supplements are not intended to treat or prevent any specific disease.
The second amendment guarantees me the right to throw napalm wherever I damn well please.
I hoped that I wouldn't be the only one to catch that. D&D never fails me.
I'm pretty sure this is where I ought to do a PSA for well regulated sleeping patterns. :oops:
People sell snake oil and say untruthful things on the news all the time. The government doesn't put a stop to it because government intervention is pretty much the worst of all the remedies in most cases.
edit: the point is that within a week every show would have that disclaimer, because no media organization would be willing to defend itself against a parade of charges of falsehood. See: Rather, Dan.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Its civil law and you have to prove specific damage.
Deceptive marketing laws are basically an offshoot of contract law, where an informal contract is made at the purchase but one side did not live up to the bargain.
Libel and slander are in the same vein as vandalism, ones public image is a property with value and any damage done to that image can be recouped if damage is proven.
Sure, so wouldn't the latter at least theoretically be viable. I mean, image is everything to a politician. If the media really managed to convince a sufficient number of people that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist, wouldn't that in theory be grounds for a suit?
Plus you're liable to get "political speech" exemptions or some such
Plus its all "someone might have said Obama is a Secret Muslim! We're just reporting what he said!"
I dont really agree with either one, but if seriously think there wasn't any bias you are a fucking idiot.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
2) Wright, Rezko, Ayers
Which is why they took every effort to bury Reverend Wright, the 'controversy' with Rezko, the secret muslim crap, this chick, Ayers, &c. rather than devoting any time to it at all.
You think they were really easy on Obama? Really? Were you paying attention?
Bias isn't having an opinion; it's having preconceptions and sticking to them.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I don't think they were "easy" on him, but there was tons more coverage of obama then there was Mcain/palin.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Stupid and hateful is easy to mock. So they did.
Stupid, lazy, greedy. That's all you need to know about the media.
Yeah, there was a lot of bias. Toward ratings. Like all the stupid coverage of the stupid non-issues Obama had to deal with. Palin's coverage was at least about things that really did demonstrate how awful she is.
They devoted time to actually showing an entire Palin rally in full for no real apparent reason other than hoping to catch some more stupid gaffes (from her or the crowd) live. If anything, towards the end McCain/Palin was getting a lot more coverage than they would have wanted because it kept exposing some of the utter stupid that was the last few weeks of the campaign spent in 'real' America with Joe the [job title].
It did. They lost the election and she had a ~58% disapproval rating. Maybe more; I quit paying attention a few weeks before November.
Suffice to say, I will not.
I read the OP and just wanted to uppercut a child. That is all.
Yeah, there isn't a mention of profit-bia-oh wait, there are -chapters- devoted to the evolution of media through profit-bias in affecting all different mediums. It's something every journalist has to understand well now these days. We're still in the age of 'dying print' where everybody is getting used to being educated primarily in new media.
Well that's a bit of a surprise. Textbooks tend to try to paint a rosy view of their subject matter.
That has not been my experience.
Most of it tends to explain how it has affected the model of the usual radio station. How it affects the model of the normal local television channel. How it affects the model of the usual local newspaper. It is less mentioned in the textbooks how this changes the actual culture or coverage obtained as far as profit-bias goes, but it is extensively discussed in class, for sure.
It has been mine. The only exceptions were history texts.
That's essentially the reasoning behind the profit-bias. All the fancy tech shit we the public demand now is expensive and more difficult to learn how to build/maintain/operate. But media bias extends beyond journalism, the profit-bias is built into almost all media at this point. In some regions of the field it goes so far as to almost be censorship by the market (as opposed to by a government).
Even math textbooks? Well, OK, I guess they took out the canibalization of 9 by 7.
My problem with the whole "media bias" thing is that it's gotten news stations to not only present both sides of the argument, but both sides of the facts as well.
Steam: pazython
The analogy that new stations have one person on to say it's raining outside and another to say it isn't, when the reporter should be able to stick their head out the door and see for themselves.
they work for us.
They give us as close as possible to exactly what we want or they go under. And it's possible to get pretty damned close.
No, that's PBS. They work for their advertisers who make them appeal to us as much as possible.
You might think that it's a distinction without a difference, but there is a difference. Tote bags.