Should it be illegal for the news to lie?

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

discuss

roflolololmao

Why can't I say both "yes" and "fuck Fox"?

They're basically the same answer anyway.

PiEman wrote:Why can't I say both "yes" and "fuck Fox"?

They're basically the same answer anyway.

My sentiments exactly

lol. Fox sux

The press has the freedom to say what it wants

it should not be illegal to do that


I do think people should stop watching news programs that lie though






honorable news programs should have more viewers

Its not legal to spread false information, or something like that anyways. Says so in the Bill of Rights

BBJynne wrote:The press has the freedom to say what it wants

it should not be illegal to do that

This is true. We can't make it something that corporations are legally bound to. However, what we can do, is create a Federal News License. Those who apply for a license would be legally bound to present the news in a truthful manner. News Networks that do not have a license won't be 'looked after,' but they also would not be taken at all seriously by the viewing public.

I agree with Toaster. (for once)

If we create such a law, then CNN would get hammered as hard as Fox.

What is lying? Is it saying that Russia is not invading Chechnya when it is? Is it refusing to disclose your sources, when you're revealing government secrets? Is it saying "9-11 was an inside job" when all you have going for you is half-cooked conspiracy theories and a seemingly incompetent president inside the White House? Is it ignoring the President's affairs, because "That's his personal life"? Is it hammering a presidential candidate for not correcting an audience member who refers to the opposing candidate as a "Filthy raghead", but ignoring the guy a week later when that very same candidate tells an audience member "He's not an Arab. He is simply someone I disagree with."

So, where do you draw the line on 'lying'?
The problem is, journalists have NO MORAL CODE. Not like doctors. They are out to sell stories and sell copies. That's why you have articles about Bo the First Dog and the fact that Obama swatted a fly that landed on him during an interview, which is funny because Lincoln had a run-in with a fly as well.

That's why I am opposed to an outright ban on 'lying'. Because I know it wouldn't be enforced, wouldn't be evenly applied, and would be too vague.

If I was in charge, however, you'd definitely see a journalistic code of ethics being applied.

Well I think there is already an unofficial Journalistic code. I think saying that Journalists employ no ethics is going a bit far...

Watching that video, it seems more like it's the father corporatiions who have no journalistic morals. Still, I can certainly see some fields where there are none... like celebrity gossip, and crap like that.

ReconToaster wrote:Well I think there is already an unofficial Journalistic code. I think saying that Journalists employ no ethics is going a bit far...

In the UK there is an official self-regulatory code that can be read here. This is written by the main editors and adhered to throughout the country. The beauty of this system is that while it does not 'have' to be followed because breaking it would not break any laws, it prevents the necessity for new laws to be put into place. It's a very similar system to our censorship of films, games etc.

As of now, nobody has defaulted on the code - and if they have by accident, they have apologised in a further release. As you can see, accuracy is number one on the list.

This is for newspapers, but I'm pretty sure the news programmes are the same.

the media (anything that is under U.S. law anyways) cannot legally state something that is false as fact; however, they can choose to omit some information, which they almost always do.

Opinions are gaaay