"Certifying" New Agencies.

[Ernie S.]

That seriously is not the point.

Accuracy in media, in my opinion, is just as important as free speech. News agencies should not be "lying" to the public.

Once propaganda is allowed to be passed off as news..then there is a risk that other parts of society begin to "change"..and normally not in a good way.

Take for instance the health care reform debate. obama said it would not raise premiums and everyone could keep their current plans. Fox presented talking head after talking head disputing that. Let's go back in time one year and rate Fox for truthfulness.
If we had some government panel rating news sources at that point, it would have agreed with obama, because if it didn't, the members would have been replaced.

Commentary is not news.

So if CNN reported as news that HCR would allow everyone to keep their current plan at no increase in premium and fox presented a news story stating the opposite during the debate, how would a government appointed truth panel have ruled? Please don't give me a news vs commentary lecture, just answer the question.

 

[Sallow]

Take for instance the health care reform debate. obama said it would not raise premiums and everyone could keep their current plans. Fox presented talking head after talking head disputing that. Let's go back in time one year and rate Fox for truthfulness.
If we had some government panel rating news sources at that point, it would have agreed with obama, because if it didn't, the members would have been replaced.

Commentary is not news.

So if CNN reported as news that HCR would allow everyone to keep their current plan at no increase in premium and fox presented a news story stating the opposite during the debate, how would a government appointed truth panel have ruled? Please don't give me a news vs commentary lecture, just answer the question.

Um..you ask a ridiculous question to try and goad an irrelevant answer?

If CNN reported something like the "CBO reported that the HCR won't add to the deficit" - Well that's based on information they got from the CBO. Unless the CBO reported that it would add to the deficit..then that story would not be accurate.

But Hannity yammering about how it would be the end of life as we know it..is commentary. And probably not accurate.

 

[daveman]

Commentary is not news.

So if CNN reported as news that HCR would allow everyone to keep their current plan at no increase in premium and fox presented a news story stating the opposite during the debate, how would a government appointed truth panel have ruled? Please don't give me a news vs commentary lecture, just answer the question.

Um..you ask a ridiculous question to try and goad an irrelevant answer?

If CNN reported something like the "CBO reported that the HCR won't add to the deficit" - Well that's based on information they got from the CBO. Unless the CBO reported that it would add to the deficit..then that story would not be accurate.

But Hannity yammering about how it would be the end of life as we know it..is commentary. And probably not accurate.

Looks like Obama's commentary wasn't accurate, either.

 

[Ernie S.]

Can't answer my question, can you, without admitting that the government will control what is the truth?

 

[JWBooth]

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.

Oh thats just a hell of an idea. The state approved media certified by the ministry of truth and accuracy.

Not quite.

When a government agency "certifies" what is truth, what is factual, and what is accurate, that is exactly what it will be.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Oh thats just a hell of an idea. The state approved media certified by the ministry of truth and accuracy.

Not quite.

Uh. Yes you dimbulb.

That's exactly QUITE how it would be.

 

[Sallow]

Can't answer my question, can you, without admitting that the government will control what is the truth?

The government wouldn't be "controlling the truth" it would have a say about the accuracy of the news..as would private concerns.

The government already has quite alot of "governance" over media and the right to assemble, over petitioning government for redress of grievances, and even freedom of speech.

What I am suggesting here is a ratings system...no different then you would see at the cinema. Although it may allow some press organizations a bit more access then others.

 

[boedicca]

=

The government wouldn't be "controlling the truth" it would have a say about the accuracy of the news..as would private concerns.

You really have no concept of the nature of government power.

 

[JBeukema]

Accuracy In Media

Media Matters for America

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

i'm sure there are more
but those 3 came off the top of my head

do we really need an "official" one?

Actually..yes.

Those outlets are easily dismissed as being partisan...one way or the other.

As opposed to those given the stamp of approval by Der Staat?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You already know Fox news lies , Why do you need the lies to be certified ? Will it help you sleep at night?