Should news media be allowed to lie?

reply to post by JohnFisher


Totally agree with you, but sadly the majority wins, and the masses don't give a rats tail, most get their "news" from mass media or other equally ignominious sources.
We care, we search and seek out other sources, but when you go out, and only hear that folks are only interested in the latest Bieber escapades, or the latest sporting event than in banking plots to topple the world economies, then its time to worry.

Have u not had people look at you funny when you bring some uncomfortable news to people and they tell you that they haven't heard it on the tv?

The government can try to hide the truth, media can try to control their audiences, but at the end of the day truth always comes forth, but only for those that actively seek it, the rest, well... u know.

the media's design was to lie to the public to push"said" agenda it has been happening since it began....

should it be allowed NO...but that is its purpose

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Forget lying. That's peanuts.

Should the media allow full blown propaganda operations to be perpetrated on the US citizens? That bloated bag of scum Scalia clearly sees no prob with that.

Hat tip to Canada. Fux News Applied for a station there and was rejected because it isn't considered journalism or news. Conservatives, your media created deity Ronald Reagan stripped the fairness doctrine of the FCC. I guess it was hurting profits of a donor.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Apparently, the answer to your question is yes, at least as far as Fox News and the courts are concerned.

In 2003, Fox News actually went to court in Florida asserting that they had the right to lie to the public and they won.

So apparently, they have deliberately lied to us in the past, are intentionally lying to us now and they have proven their willingness to fight in court to sustain their right to lie to us in the future. Go Figure! Go Faux News!

www.dailykos.com...

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Lawyers paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.

It's their right under the 1st Amendment

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

So, as sickening as the thought of it is, the practice of lying on-air is indeed legal and IMO, some news sources like Fox News have become totally reliant on the practice of distorting the facts because their audience "Can't Handle The Truth!"

Especially when it points the finger right back at some of their biggest supporters. Just can't have it, wouldn't be right.

As far as I'm concerned, Fox News has lost all credibility with respect to being a source of honest news. I am of the opinion that their sole purpose for even being in business is to "pour gas on the flames of idiocy."

There is no city, county, state or federal law, rule or regulation that says MSM news or elected officials can't lie.
Whats the problem ? We allow it !

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


People don't use or even know how to use critical thinking in too many cases, IMO.

If one doesn't apply critical thinking to MSM? Truth and Lie become indistinguishable.

In "my own perfect Dream-World" they are not allow to Lie
but there is a big Gap between my Dreams and Reality!

A Newspaper, Magazine or Report should be just "a Media",
just a small Step for the own Research!

What is Truth?
Imo. it is highly Complicated and not that easy to answer!

No if they are purporting it to be NEWS it should be truthful.

For the U.S.A.

What Can The FCC Do?

The Communications Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit any action by the FCC that would censor or interfere with free speech in broadcasting. For example, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster’s selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary. The FCC does, however, regulate content in some narrow areas. For example, federal law prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language. But the FCC must be guided by decisions of the courts in determining whether specific material may be prohibited under this law. Similarly, the FCC may penalize licensees for knowingly broadcasting false information.

Filing A Complaint With The FCC

Complaints regarding news distortion, rigging or slanting can also be filed free-of-charge with the FCC. Complaints alleging news distortion, rigging or slanting must contain documented evidence in support of the allegations. It is not sufficient for a complaint to allege only that a broadcast station made a mistake in reporting a news event. The complaint must include documented evidence showing deliberate misrepresentation.

You can file your complaint using an online complaint form. You also can file your complaint with the FCC’s Consumer Center by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Struggling to find similar for UK except BBC royal charter and broadcasting Act.

reply to post by johnb


How do you define a lie, is the problem? If you report in your newspaper that Obamacare was started with the best of intentions and simply fell from a bad roll out....you'll be saying, we assume, what you truly believe is the truth with factual support.

I can report precisely the opposite and to the degree factual support is viable in that area of news reporting, be just as genuine and sincere in believing I am honest. That is, that it wasn't started with good Faith and was meant to fail.

Just one example and for all it matters here, we each may feel totally different on that topic...but any number of topics could be described similarly.

Who becomes the decider of truth in news? Down that path lay worse things than just dishonest reporters, in my humble view.

reply to post by xuenchen


Thank you But the response was yours. I just supported and elaborated because you are right.

reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet


You make a good point. For several years I received weird looks and skeptical, or even hateful, comments. I finally came to the point where I can speak with conviction and supported evidence. I learned which angles to come from. Most people I talk to anymore are becoming more receptive for whatever reason.

But what you're talking about is much bigger than who I talk to, and it seems too much to overcome. I even find myself participating in the same mindless interests some times. They have manufactured and normalized a sort of pseudo-reality that is difficult to escape from. I wish I knew the answer.

Anyway, again, good point.

reply to post by JohnFisher


We have to participate in society, one cannot ostracize itself, but one thing is participating, having fun and sharing the moments, an another very different is giving in, and making the events our main driving force, as is for some!

We can only set the example if one really cares, preaching and forcing our wills and motivations is as bad as the media lying and distorting the facts!

Everyone eventually will open their eyes, its never too late to change!

spiritualzombie

xuenchen
*IF* a law was passed to compel "truth" in news media, who would set the standards?

Who gets to "confirm"?

This brings up an excellent point, and in my opinion one of the worst effects of allowing news media to lie or intentionally mislead public. It turns truth into a mythical idea like religion... Everyone is free to have their own belief. So-called news sources like MSNBC and FOX News might more resemble a religion than news, and the people who watch those stations more like devoted followers than truth seekers.

I have not been educated in the ways of journalism, but I would think there must be an effective method for investigating and reporting the truth.

No, there isn't.

Think of it this way:

I was a teacher in an inner city school, and one thing we had plenty of were fights. And fights were an enormous spectator sport for everyone. Once the fight was broken up, everyone was questioned about the event that just happened - each combatant, spectators, etc.

Do you think any two stories matched? Of course not. What each person saw, even though they all saw and/or were directly involved in the same event, was entirely different and told through a different filtering perspective.

The only way to get a completely impartial and unbiased account of the fight would be if a camera happened to catch it.

Well your news is the same way no matter who reports it or from what outlet. It's filtered through multiple layers of personal bias and perception, and only direct video is going to help you out. But even direct video and photographs can be easily altered these days. Look at how ABC skewed national perceptions of George Zimmerman by creatively editing his 911 call to make it look like he volunteered the information of Martin's race all on his own.

So, you can't even trust video, audio, or photographs unless you know the source because they're not above altering to fit the narrative.

Passing a law to try to compel the truth isn't going to help. The fact is that news today is more about changing the world than it is about telling people what actually happened and letting them decide on their own.

I could talk a lot about the OKC bombing. My family had plenty of experiences with Connie Chung and crew during that incident, and I haven't trusted the media since.

There is much to consider when watching and listening to any news.
First the source, and then their motivation, and intentions.
The Adjectives used in a news story put the disired spin , leaning to the left or right ,guiding a certain way of thinking.
One must accept any news with a grain of salt.
News is used to divide and conquer, to drive wedges in everyones way of seeing the world and thinking.
Fear,hate and distrust.
Reporting just the facts does not sell news, selling lies does.
They lie because they can.

The media lying to us is not really the problem, rather it's allowing them to tell us the truth.
After all, truth is stranger than fiction and if we were to receive it unedited, it might scare the beejeezus out of us.

Canada has laws that prohibit “broadcasting false or misleading news.” This has kept FOX News out of Canada.

Allowing 'news' organizations (whose position it is to inform the public) to intentionally mislead the public is hugely damaging to our society.

Self-proclaimed "Fair & Balance", "Most Trusted News Source"-type organizations that regularly engage in shady practices to intentionally manipulate their viewers. Falsely representing the facts, and dumbing down the public purely for political gain.

If put to a vote, I wonder if those on the Left would sooner support truthful news (which could include ditching MSNBC and any other dishonest news service), while those on the right would support news right to lie (FOX News).

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

 

People don't use or even know how to use critical thinking in too many cases, IMO.

If one doesn't apply critical thinking to MSM? Truth and Lie become indistinguishable.

Don't forget some states political parties want to ban critical thinking. Texas GOP reject's critical thinking skills. Talk about a party that wants to keep it's followers stupid.

reply to post by buster2010


that link you shared is really scary!
I mean, what on earth are we thinking? those folks want to govern?
And even stranger is that some will vote , (or voted for them), its beyond belief!

Its madness I tell yah!

Its not what one knows, but how one applies what is known that matters!

reply to post by buster2010


Neat link.

Later in the article he writes: After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement, maybe it’s time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill.

So, if critical thinking can't be taught ... it begs the question of what they are teaching instead of actual critical thinking, and what purpose is it serving?

It doesn't matter if they lie or not. There's an off switch.

We should be asking ourselves how we allowed corporations to define truth for us. We should be more concerned with the fact that we live in a society that hinges on every word these people say, when all they're trying to do in the first place is sell us things.

They tell the truth and you buy the soap. They lie and you buy the soap. They control the way you think about soap. They control the way you think about everything. That is the problem, not whether they're telling the truth or not. We shouldn't allow profit motivation to define truth for us. We shouldn't allow anything external to define truth for us.

If we stop doing that, they can lie all they want and it won't affect us in the least. And then they simply fade away into the wasteland of lies we call history.