People in News organizations should be prosecuted for lies

[Twilight Hue]

One thing they should do is make a clear differentiation between actual news and opinion/commentary. That's been a big problem I've noticed with the news in general.

However, I think they should also take the same approach with commercial speech. Any misleading statement, including the use of squirrely phrases and weasel words, should also be punished with imprisonment.

It makes me wonder who is even qualified enough in making the determination on what exactly is misleading and deceptive?

Obviously there a problem , but even fact checking is privy to those same issues it attempts to resolve.

 

[74x12]

What I am concerned about at the moment is people like Carlson and Ingraham saying things that are lies in my opinion about vaccinations that cause people not to get vaccinated, and cause more deaths. In an ideal society they would be prosecuted, in my opinion. In my opinion lies in the media should not be tolerated in any case, and the right to free speech is deficient in this regard. The right to free speech should not include speech by the media that the hosts know are lies and harm the public or anyone whether the intent can be proved they intended harm or not.

Good grief ... you'd have to shut down the entire MSM. Sounds good to me.

 

[Stevicus]

And who would you anoint to designate a phrase squirrely or a word weaselly?

A jury of their peers?

 

[sun rise]

Anyways bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

I like that idea.

In America if you work in Journalism you wont go very far if you break a story that is damaging to the Lefts right's agenda.

I fixed that post for you.

 

[Stevicus]

It makes me wonder who is even qualified enough in making the determination on what exactly is misleading and deceptive?

Obviously there a problem , but even fact checking is privy to those same issues it attempts to resolve.

Well, there needs to be some kind of objective, neutral way of examining these issues, since "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" seem to be more prevalent - or at least more widespread due to the technology of the internet.

 

[Colt]

I like that idea.



I fixed that post for you.

LoL! The Left doesn't like "the rest of the story".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A jury of their peers?

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I am concerned about at the moment is people like Carlson and Ingraham saying things that are lies in my opinion about vaccinations that cause people not to get vaccinated, and cause more deaths. In an ideal society they would be prosecuted, in my opinion. In my opinion lies in the media should not be tolerated in any case, and the right to free speech is deficient in this regard. The right to free speech should not include speech by the media that the hosts know are lies and harm the public or anyone whether the intent can be proved they intended harm or not.

I understand your concern, but I'm losing interest in selfish, entitled people clamoring about their rights. I've lost interest in their wellbeing as a result in their disinterest in yours and mine.

Somebody already mentioned gullibility being as much of the problem as right wing indoctrination media. If there wasn't a price to pay for it, there's be no advantage in being informed and savvy. If you're going to uncritically imbibe the sewage coming from the likes of Carlson and Ingraham, then you have brought what follows on yourself. Although incomplete, fortunately the areas where those people are concentrated are somewhat geographically isolated from the people who know better than to trust advice from the right. As their communities flame from coronavirus, as their hospitals fill, and as they either die or barely survive give advice to get vaccinated to people that don't need it and to people like themselves that won't listen to it - people that don't learn from words, just catastrophic experience.

It's ironic that early on in the Trump administration's mishandling of the pandemic, they believed that the virus would preferentially decimate Democratic voters and discredit Democratic governors and mayors. From August 2020 and Trump and Kushner Should Be Prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity | Washington Monthly :

"But a new report from Vanity Fair implicates both Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner of an unspeakable horror orders of magnitude greater. Instead of implementing a comprehensive and aggressive national testing plan as originally recommended by the White House coronavirus task force, Kushner scuttled it. The president and his son-in-law were instead content to allow tens of thousands of Americans die as long as they were mostly people of color, and hailing from Democratic states and counties. Not only that, they saw it as a political opportunity to both cull the numbers of opposing voters and lay blame on Democratic governors at the same time"

But that's not what's happening, is it? Now, we look at the death counts in America and realize that they are mostly Trump supporters and Fox News indoctrinees. That backfired. And that's irony.

 

[Stevicus]

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.

A properly informed majority of good conscience would be no tyranny.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I am concerned about at the moment is people like Carlson and Ingraham saying things that are lies in my opinion about vaccinations that cause people not to get vaccinated, and cause more deaths. In an ideal society they would be prosecuted, in my opinion. In my opinion lies in the media should not be tolerated in any case, and the right to free speech is deficient in this regard. The right to free speech should not include speech by the media that the hosts know are lies and harm the public or anyone whether the intent can be proved they intended harm or not.

It's been tried. Carlson's lawyers successfully argued that no reasonable person should take what he says seriously.

The Legal Defense For Fox's Tucker Carlson: He Can't Be Literally Believed : NPR

Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."​

 

[sun rise]

LoL! The Left doesn't like "the rest of the story".

I say that the Right does not like the facts let alone the story.

 

[JustGeorge]

I remember years ago(before the Trump era), my husband called the Sean Hannity show with some bit of news or the other. I don't even remember what it was. He wasn't a regular listener, but someone at work kept it on while he was there, so it was the first 'news show' that came to his mind. He just wanted whatever it was investigated, so he called.

The person that answered his call took his concern, and said she'd look into it. She actually did. She called back, and said while his find was fascinating, and his concerns were well founded, the news just wasn't what appealed to their fan base, so they couldn't report it. Sorry.

I don't think he ever concerned himself with the news again, when he realized that that was how it was!

 

[Colt]

I say that the Right does not like the facts let alone the story.

You have a Left wing bias like the majority of the media.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.

A properly informed majority of good conscience would be no tyranny.

I see. So when you argued that ...

Any misleading statement, including the use of squirrely phrases and weasel words, should also be punished with imprisonment.

Suggesting that this be adjudicated by:

A jury of their peers?

You were referring to some future time and some set of places where one could expect, and rely upon, "a properly informed majority of good conscience." Brilliant.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think that would be a lot of trials, a lot of time, and a lot of money.

If we had unlimited access to trials, time, and money, I'd say go for it, but I don't think this is the case.

Maybe you're right. The situation is this country is desperate with the lies about vaccinations and stolen elections so I just am desperate myself about the situation.

 

[Truthseeker]

Editorials are opinions. But I see where the lines could be blurred. And it’s still a slippery slope.

Editorials are opinions, but they should be based on facts, in my opinion. There's no slippery slope, in my opinion. See my response about perhaps prosecuting all the lies being unrealistic People in News organizations should be prosecuted for lies

 

[Truthseeker]

What makes it a lie?

Anyways bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

I had to look up the fairness doctrine. Yeah, that would help some, though it's not a panacea, though nothing in this situation s a panacea, including prosecuting those who tell lies, because as has been pointed out above, you can't prosecute all the lies because of the time and money expended. Maybe some lies can be prosecuted? Nah, such selectivity is questionable, too. It would probably be unfair.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I had to look up the fairness doctrine. Yeah, that would help some, though it's not a panacea, though nothing in this situation s a panacea, including prosecuting those who tell lies, because as has been pointed out above, you can't prosecute all the lies because of the time and money expended. Maybe some lies can be prosecuted? Nah, such selectivity is questionable, too. It would probably be unfair.

I think its because of the elimination of the fairness doctrine that we are where we are today.

Biggest blunder Regan ever made.

 

[Truthseeker]

I do agree that journalists should be held to a high standard when disseminating information. Which is why there’s a code of conduct for most countries. But American media seems to thrive on hyperbole, no offence. My country is not that different, I’m just saying. America seems to have much more lax standards. That’s just my perception though.

I don't know anything about the standards in Australia, but it's really bad in America right now. There's always been hyperbole in America, but now there are many people here that can't even agree on what the facts are! It's gotten worse recently.

 

[Stevicus]

Brilliant.

Yes, it is.