"Certifying" New Agencies.

[Sallow]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

 

[xotoxi]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Is there any way you could work executions into the punishment?

 

[The Infidel]

What a joke.....

 

[Sallow]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Is there any way you could work executions into the punishment?

Naw..but a public flogging might be in order..

 

[Jeremy]

Only if that agency were to also grant certification to the exercise of the other aspects of the 1st amendment. ie. all free speech must be certified, all religions must be certified, all public assemblies must be certified. gotta keep it fair yaknow?

 

[Sallow]

Only if that agency were to also grant certification to the exercise of the other aspects of the 1st amendment. ie. all free speech must be certified, all religions must be certified, all public assemblies must be certified. gotta keep it fair yaknow?

Wouldn't go that far.

And it's more a way to tell what news organizations are reliable and what are not.

I've seen more hearings in Congress about real and fake sports then real and fake news..

 

[Jeremy]

Only if that agency were to also grant certification to the exercise of the other aspects of the 1st amendment. ie. all free speech must be certified, all religions must be certified, all public assemblies must be certified. gotta keep it fair yaknow?

Wouldn't go that far.

And it's more a way to tell what news organizations are reliable and what are not.

I've seen more hearings in Congress about real and fake sports then real and fake news..

In my opinion I would think that the first amendment would have to be repealed in order for those agency certifications to be constitutional. But I give you credit for creativity. One day you guys will find a way to shut down FNC. Don't give up. There is still hope.

 

[Sallow]

Only if that agency were to also grant certification to the exercise of the other aspects of the 1st amendment. ie. all free speech must be certified, all religions must be certified, all public assemblies must be certified. gotta keep it fair yaknow?

Wouldn't go that far.

And it's more a way to tell what news organizations are reliable and what are not.

I've seen more hearings in Congress about real and fake sports then real and fake news..

In my opinion I would think that the first amendment would have to be repealed in order for those agency certifications to be constitutional. But I give you credit for creativity. One day you guys will find a way to shut down FNC. Don't give up. There is still hope.

Not so sure about that. This isn't about "shutting down" anything. It's more about "Quality Assurance".

 

[Jeremy]

Wouldn't go that far.

And it's more a way to tell what news organizations are reliable and what are not.

I've seen more hearings in Congress about real and fake sports then real and fake news..

In my opinion I would think that the first amendment would have to be repealed in order for those agency certifications to be constitutional. But I give you credit for creativity. One day you guys will find a way to shut down FNC. Don't give up. There is still hope.

Not so sure about that. This isn't about "shutting down" anything. It's more about "Quality Assurance".

More or less just stricter FCC license guidlines? I dunno. Not a big fan expanding government regulation myself.

How about prohibiting non-media corporations from owning stakes in media outlets. (ie. GE, Microsoft with MSNBC)
Or prohibiting investment into American media outlets from sources outside the country (ie. Saudi Prince with Fox News)

 

[Sallow]

In my opinion I would think that the first amendment would have to be repealed in order for those agency certifications to be constitutional. But I give you credit for creativity. One day you guys will find a way to shut down FNC. Don't give up. There is still hope.

Not so sure about that. This isn't about "shutting down" anything. It's more about "Quality Assurance".

More or less just stricter FCC license guidlines? I dunno. Not a big fan expanding government regulation myself.

Maybe..or maybe a new public/private hybrid that does the certification.

How about prohibiting non-media corporations from owning stakes in media outlets. (ie. GE, Microsoft with MSNBC)
Or prohibiting investment into American media outlets from sources outside the country (ie. Saudi Prince with Fox News)

I think that's another issue. This isn't so much about ownership..as it is about the quality of "American" news organizations. We pretty much are still the "gold standard" when it comes to reporting news in a fair and accurate way. It's important that gets retained.

 

[Jeremy]

Not so sure about that. This isn't about "shutting down" anything. It's more about "Quality Assurance".

More or less just stricter FCC license guidlines? I dunno. Not a big fan expanding government regulation myself.

Maybe..or maybe a new public/private hybrid that does the certification.

How about prohibiting non-media corporations from owning stakes in media outlets. (ie. GE, Microsoft with MSNBC)
Or prohibiting investment into American media outlets from sources outside the country (ie. Saudi Prince with Fox News)

I think that's another issue. This isn't so much about ownership..as it is about the quality of "American" news organizations. We pretty much are still the "gold standard" when it comes to reporting news in a fair and accurate way. It's important that gets retained.

If it was more of a rating system (like an individuals FICO score) when it comes to accuracy and bias that might be a good thing for public consumption. But having the "certification" aspect is what I have a problem with. Cirtification implies that said agency has revocation authority. And I wouldn't even wish that for MSNBC. And than there is the issue of conflict amongst the individuals selected to make these determinations. One persons accurate news is another's biased misinformation and vice versa.

 

[daveman]

 

[Sallow]

More or less just stricter FCC license guidlines? I dunno. Not a big fan expanding government regulation myself.

Maybe..or maybe a new public/private hybrid that does the certification.

How about prohibiting non-media corporations from owning stakes in media outlets. (ie. GE, Microsoft with MSNBC)
Or prohibiting investment into American media outlets from sources outside the country (ie. Saudi Prince with Fox News)

I think that's another issue. This isn't so much about ownership..as it is about the quality of "American" news organizations. We pretty much are still the "gold standard" when it comes to reporting news in a fair and accurate way. It's important that gets retained.

If it was more of a rating system (like an individuals FICO score) when it comes to accuracy and bias that might be a good thing for public consumption. But having the "certification" aspect is what I have a problem with. Cirtification implies that said agency has revocation authority. And than there is the issue of conflict amongst the individuals selected to make these determinations. One persons accurate news is another's biased misinformation and vice versa.

That's basically why I posted that non-certified agencies would be free to broadcast without interruption. What might be in place is certified new agencies would have greater access to politicians..but that probably be the only change...well that..and they could display their certification with the broadcast.

Do you really want to see another Jeff Gannon?

 

[Jeremy]

Maybe..or maybe a new public/private hybrid that does the certification.



I think that's another issue. This isn't so much about ownership..as it is about the quality of "American" news organizations. We pretty much are still the "gold standard" when it comes to reporting news in a fair and accurate way. It's important that gets retained.

If it was more of a rating system (like an individuals FICO score) when it comes to accuracy and bias that might be a good thing for public consumption. But having the "certification" aspect is what I have a problem with. Cirtification implies that said agency has revocation authority. And than there is the issue of conflict amongst the individuals selected to make these determinations. One persons accurate news is another's biased misinformation and vice versa.

That's basically why I posted that non-certified agencies would be free to broadcast without interruption. What might be in place is certified new agencies would have greater access to politicians..but that probably be the only change...well that..and they could display their certification with the broadcast.

Do you really want to see another Jeff Gannon?

 

[Missourian]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Who's going to certify the panel as unbiased?

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the panel as unbiased as unbiased.

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the folks as unbiased who certify the panel as unbiased, as unbiased.

See the problem?

 

[Jeremy]

Or another Ed Schultz jumping right into the front row at press conferences?

 

[DiveCon]

Not so sure about that. This isn't about "shutting down" anything. It's more about "Quality Assurance".

More or less just stricter FCC license guidlines? I dunno. Not a big fan expanding government regulation myself.

Maybe..or maybe a new public/private hybrid that does the certification.

How about prohibiting non-media corporations from owning stakes in media outlets. (ie. GE, Microsoft with MSNBC)
Or prohibiting investment into American media outlets from sources outside the country (ie. Saudi Prince with Fox News)

I think that's another issue. This isn't so much about ownership..as it is about the quality of "American" news organizations. We pretty much are still the "gold standard" when it comes to reporting news in a fair and accurate way. It's important that gets retained.

can you actually say that with a straight face?

 

[Jeremy]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Who's going to certify the panel as unbiased?

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the panel as unbiased as unbiased.

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the folks as unbiased who certify the panel as unbiased, as unbiased.

See the problem?

precisely the reason I'm not sold on the idea.

 

[Dr.House]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Who's going to certify the panel as unbiased?

A handpicked group of liberal think tank members...

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the panel as unbiased as unbiased.

Other liberal think tank members...

And who's going to certify the folks who certify the folks as unbiased who certify the panel as unbiased, as unbiased.

George Soros

See the problem?

Shouldn't be a problem.... I'm sure they will volunteer to assist in this endeavor...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It Says
Congress shall make no law.

What part of 'no' don't you understand?