People in News organizations should be prosecuted for lies

[Truthseeker]

What did Tucker lie about specifically?

Despite Outbreaks Among Unvaccinated, Fox News Hosts Smear Shots

 

[Truthseeker]

I'm an American, my experience has been that we no longer have real journalism, we have journalistic activism and click-bait profiteering.

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

Fox news is the most popular cable news network, I hear. Cable News Ratings Plunge In June – Deadline

But you're right, journalism is about making money and being activists for one side or the other.

 

[Truthseeker]

No chance of getting a political majority for that. Which politician would even think about making lying illegal?

Right.

 

[Truthseeker]

Big question. How do you know for sure its lies?

See this: People in News organizations should be prosecuted for lies

 

[Truthseeker]

In an ideal society free speech would be defended by an intelligent and socially responsible citizenry, representing a super-majority of the population, and fully capable of quarantining nonsense.

The problem is not the liar; the problem is the credulous: gullibility kills.

Yes, we need the people to know when they are being lied to. A need to independently investigate. Above it has also been suggested we go back to the Fairness Doctrine. Mea Culpa for my original proposal.

 

[Truthseeker]

What lies? People are also dying from the vaccines. Others are having health problems because of them. Should this not be public knowledge?

Very few are dying or having health problems from vaccines. Get informed, look up what I'm saying here and see for yourself.

 

[Truthseeker]

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

What's MSM?

 

[Truthseeker]

I fixed that post for you.

I like the first suggestion, but the second erasure and substitution goes a tiny bit too far.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Be a little more merciful to those who are gullible.

 

[Watchmen]

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

But what the facts actually are is very often a difference of opinion. If you start prosecuting media types you’re getting Orwellian.

 

[JustGeorge]

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.

I feel desperate sometimes, too... but in the end, there's not much little 'ol me can do about it. So I just try to do my best and hope it spreads.

 

[Truthseeker]

But what the facts actually are is very often a difference of opinion. If you start prosecuting media types you’re getting Orwellian.

What happened before now in opinions is the selective inclusion of facts. that has always been true. Nowadays too often there are lies, not selective inclusion of facts.

I've changed my stance on prosecuting lies, by the way. It's unrealistic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

The best any one could do is cross reference mass information and look for inconsistencies and variations among all the pieces.

Problem is, it's time consuming and tedious and is an averaging of accumulated data that may or may not be spot on what actually transpired.

 

[Stevicus]

The best any one could do is cross reference mass information and look for inconsistencies and variations among all the pieces.

Problem is, it's time consuming and tedious and is an averaging of accumulated data that may or may not be spot on what actually transpired.

Well, yes, it's time-consuming and tedious, but that's why academicians, researchers, and journalists get paid for their work.

But a lot of times, it's not even debates over actual "facts." A good case in point is the event that occurred at the Capitol on January 6. The big argument now is whether it was an "insurrection," as the left believes, or "just a riot," as the right is opining.

Which side is giving us "facts"? Neither.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

You have to be careful, as Fox will be very quick to point out those like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Carlson are not news but opinions.
However, regardless of what they are, over things like covid misinformation they should be held criminally liable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, yes, it's time-consuming and tedious, but that's why academicians, researchers, and journalists get paid for their work.

But a lot of times, it's not even debates over actual "facts." A good case in point is the event that occurred at the Capitol on January 6. The big argument now is whether it was an "insurrection," as the left believes, or "just a riot," as the right is opining.

Which side is giving us "facts"? Neither.

Let's go beyond semantics:
The Left believes it was violent and definitely not peaceful; a very great many on the Right believes they were being respectful and it was peaceful.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Let's go beyond semantics:
The Left believes it was violent and definitely not peaceful; a very great many on the Right believes they were being respectful and it was peaceful.

And it's flipped when it comes to the BLM riots. There were mainstream reporters standing in front of burning buildings and looters running past with their loot, and declaring with a straight face that the protests are peaceful. Lol.

 

[Truthseeker]

You have to be careful, as Fox will be very quick to point out those like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Carlson are not news but opinions.
However, regardless of what they are, over things like covid misinformation they should be held criminally liable.

Careful. Look at the whole thread. I said this recently:

Yes, we need the people to know when they are being lied to. A need to independently investigate. Above it has also been suggested we go back to the Fairness Doctrine. Mea Culpa for my original proposal.

 

[Kooky]

Why is it "people in news organizations" and not "news organizations"?
Employees and contractors are not free to say whatever they want - most of their "opinions" on air would be scripted performances, and for those unscripted, there would be a narrow band of opinions they are allowed to express.

 

[Stevicus]

Let's go beyond semantics:
The Left believes it was violent and definitely not peaceful; a very great many on the Right believes they were being respectful and it was peaceful.

I would still maintain that neither of those are factual reports. Of course, people can have different perceptions, and that's okay - as long as they're presented in that way. When people start browbeating others that their perception is absolute, objective fact, then that's worrisome.

I wasn't there, so I can't give any first-hand account, but I did read the accounts, reports, saw pictures and videos. It did not appear peaceful or respectful, and I think one can say that it reached the level of "riot," which is what most on the right (whom I've heard) will admit to. I don't know who said it was peaceful, because it certainly wasn't.

But to call it an insurrection or to make comparisons to the Civil War is quite a bit over the top. The government was in no danger of being overthrown.