Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?

[daveman]

Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."

It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..." It's called a question. That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?

I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.

Are you bothering to follow your own posts. You're arguing for imposing fines on people. You're arguing for silencing people.

Yes. The title asks a question, but you picked a position and you are arguing with it.

Nonsense. This is a debating forum. I argue that it could be done while other people say it can't be done or shouldn't be done.

Additionally, the notion that people are someone "silenced" would tend to give the impression that they're not allowed to be speak some fundamental truth in much the way that the citizens of the Soviet Union were not allowed to speak the truth while the gov't controlled the TV stations and newspapers. But preventing someone from misrepresenting truth across the public airwaves is not a form of censorship unless a person places a higher value on false propaganda than they do on honest discourse. In such cases, anyone who defends broadcasting statements over the air that are factually untrue is someone who probably has a secret fondness for the old Soviet Union and WND both. I don't like either one of them.

Why don't you answer these questions?

 

[MarcATL]

Not at all. As I said, I have evidence. You have offered no conflicting evidence, either.


But let's try something else. Did the stimulus succeed, or did it fail?

You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!

Okay.

The science is settled. The debate is over. You are indeed an idiot.

That's it....?

Really....?

Fool!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!

Okay.

The science is settled. The debate is over. You are indeed an idiot.

That's it....?

Really....?

Fool!!!

Why don't you like science?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why don't you like science?

Because science denies the idea of Obama as Messiah®, of course!

 

[Iridescence]

The idea of individuals being held accountable for more of their words on open tv than not IS very appealing. It could also prove far less worth saying...

 

[idb]

Not quite what the OP was talking about I know but...a new law has been drafted here regarding celebrity endorsements of financial services.

Celebrities who make misleading endorsements of finance companies will face hefty fines under laws being drafted by the Government.

Commerce Minister Simon Power has released further details of a major rewrite of securities law, including a liability regime under which anyone making misleading comments in a disclosure statement or advertisement for a financial product will be liable for a penalty of up to $1 million, plus compensation orders.

Companies would face fines of up to $5 million, as well as compensation.

Celebrity endorsements risk $1m fine - National - NZ Herald News

Quite why anyone would put all of their money into a finance company just because an ex-newsreader or sports star told them to is beyond me but anyway...

 

[daveman]

You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!

Okay.

The science is settled. The debate is over. You are indeed an idiot.

That's it....?

Really....?

Fool!!!

See? I knew you'd disagree. You don't even realize you're proving my larger point.

But that's because you are, like I said, an idiot.

Oh, and the link was to all of your posts.

 

[daveman]

The idea of individuals being held accountable for more of their words on open tv than not IS very appealing. It could also prove far less worth saying...

Television talking heads are accountable now. They piss off their viewers, their ratings go down, and pretty soon, you're Keith Olbermann on the Global Warming's Gonna Kill Us All and Make Me Rich Network, somewhere way on up in the cable triple digits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Amazing how you know that shows you dont watch are lying.

We certainly need to start fining those shows. I mean they have to be bad if you know they are lying without watching them.

 

[Mustang]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Amazing how you know that shows you dont watch are lying.

We certainly need to start fining those shows. I mean they have to be bad if you know they are lying without watching them.

I assume you're making an effort to be humorous? Too bad that it only comes across as being obtuse.

I used to watch those shows once upon a time. I just got sick of them. The supposed purpose of the shows is to shed light on subjects. All they end up doing is confusing people who are too ill-informed to know better, or cloud the issues with so much nonsense and disinformation as to make finding a kernel of truth tantamount to a scavenger hunt. The only thing some of these so-called commentators manage to do is turn their forums into the verbal version of a WWE cage match with viewers rooting for some kind of rhetorica TKO. Hell, I've seen better HS debates. Our Democracy/Republic deserves better than verbal jousting which panders to the LCD while only clouding the issues.

 

[daveman]

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Amazing how you know that shows you dont watch are lying.

We certainly need to start fining those shows. I mean they have to be bad if you know they are lying without watching them.

I assume you're making an effort to be humorous? Too bad that it only comes across as being obtuse.

I used to watch those shows once upon a time. I just got sick of them. The supposed purpose of the shows is to shed light on subjects. All they end up doing is confusing people who are too ill-informed to know better, or cloud the issues with so much nonsense and disinformation as to make finding a kernel of truth tantamount to a scavenger hunt. The only thing some of these so-called commentators manage to do is turn their forums into the verbal version of a WWE cage match with viewers rooting for some kind of rhetorica TKO. Hell, I've seen better HS debates. Our Democracy/Republic deserves better than verbal jousting which panders to the LCD while only clouding the issues.

Answer these questions, please.

 

[Mustang]

Are you bothering to follow your own posts. You're arguing for imposing fines on people. You're arguing for silencing people.

Yes. The title asks a question, but you picked a position and you are arguing with it.

Nonsense. This is a debating forum. I argue that it could be done while other people say it can't be done or shouldn't be done.

Additionally, the notion that people are someone "silenced" would tend to give the impression that they're not allowed to be speak some fundamental truth in much the way that the citizens of the Soviet Union were not allowed to speak the truth while the gov't controlled the TV stations and newspapers. But preventing someone from misrepresenting truth across the public airwaves is not a form of censorship unless a person places a higher value on false propaganda than they do on honest discourse. In such cases, anyone who defends broadcasting statements over the air that are factually untrue is someone who probably has a secret fondness for the old Soviet Union and WND both. I don't like either one of them.

Why don't you answer these questions?

1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban?

All the network stations would have to do is have a person or people affiliated with their shows who reviews statements of fact which are made by someone. So, for example, if someone says that the unemployment rate in March of 1990 was x, that's a statement that is verifiable. It wouldn't, as I said, be a question of lying as much as it would be about being factually accurate. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they're not entitled to their own facts. The bottom line is this: If a person intends to go on a show and present statements as fact, they had better be factually true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

I love it when science proves people are idiots.



The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Look at that, not only does this prove that people believe different truths based on their political ideology, it proves that more education makes no difference at all in those beliefs.



And you are intellectually incapable of recognizing either because you believe what you believe, and reject everything else as a lie.



Only if you are willing to listen.



If it can be proven false it is not a fact.

But thanks for making my point for me.



As opposed to you and your ilk that think things that can be proven to be false are facts?

Snap out of it!!!

Lovely advice. I suggest you look in a mirror and yell it until the guy you see there recognizes reality.

Let's go with that definition then, I'll give you that.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

The fact that many people seem to believe and/or be comfortable with two different realities aka truths, is evidence that they aren't based in reality themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Good job.

Did you miss the part where I provided a peer reviewed study about how truth is subjective to one's beliefs? If I present you with the fact that prove your worldview is wrong you will simply ignore them. Not your fault, simple human nature. Education only makes you more inclined to cling to your beliefs, which explains why many people can have a college degree and still believe that trickle down did not increase the relative wealth of the US.

Truth is, and always will be, subjective.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

neat idea but impossible to actually do

It's not impossible. Touching your elbow to your nose is impossible.

not if your nose has been cut off from your body... or your arms.

Or your arm is broken.

 

[daveman]

Nonsense. This is a debating forum. I argue that it could be done while other people say it can't be done or shouldn't be done.

Additionally, the notion that people are someone "silenced" would tend to give the impression that they're not allowed to be speak some fundamental truth in much the way that the citizens of the Soviet Union were not allowed to speak the truth while the gov't controlled the TV stations and newspapers. But preventing someone from misrepresenting truth across the public airwaves is not a form of censorship unless a person places a higher value on false propaganda than they do on honest discourse. In such cases, anyone who defends broadcasting statements over the air that are factually untrue is someone who probably has a secret fondness for the old Soviet Union and WND both. I don't like either one of them.

Why don't you answer these questions?

1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban?

All the network stations would have to do is have a person or people affiliated with their shows who reviews statements of fact which are made by someone. So, for example, if someone says that the unemployment rate in March of 1990 was x, that's a statement that is verifiable. It wouldn't, as I said, be a question of lying as much as it would be about being factually accurate. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they're not entitled to their own facts. The bottom line is this: If a person intends to go on a show and present statements as fact, they had better be factually true.

Media already does their own fact-checking. Sometimes they still get it wrong. When they do, corrections are made in varying degrees of visibility.

This is much ado about nothing, really.

And you didn't answer the second and third questions. But don't bother, if your answers aren't going to be any better than the first.

 

[Mustang]

I love it when science proves people are idiots.



The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Look at that, not only does this prove that people believe different truths based on their political ideology, it proves that more education makes no difference at all in those beliefs.



And you are intellectually incapable of recognizing either because you believe what you believe, and reject everything else as a lie.



Only if you are willing to listen.



If it can be proven false it is not a fact.

But thanks for making my point for me.



As opposed to you and your ilk that think things that can be proven to be false are facts?



Lovely advice. I suggest you look in a mirror and yell it until the guy you see there recognizes reality.

Let's go with that definition then, I'll give you that.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

The fact that many people seem to believe and/or be comfortable with two different realities aka truths, is evidence that they aren't based in reality themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Good job.

Did you miss the part where I provided a peer reviewed study about how truth is subjective to one's beliefs? If I present you with the fact that prove your worldview is wrong you will simply ignore them. Not your fault, simple human nature. Education only makes you more inclined to cling to your beliefs, which explains why many people can have a college degree and still believe that trickle down did not increase the relative wealth of the US.

Truth is, and always will be, subjective.

Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing. Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.

None of that changes the definition of what constitutes a fact. A fact is immutable, regardless of how people interpret it or what kind of meaning they attach to it.

 

[MarcATL]

Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing. Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.

None of that changes the definition of what constitutes a fact. A fact is immutable, regardless of how people interpret it or what kind of meaning they attach to it.

Thank you!!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

Jay Rosen has it right:

PressThink: What CNN Should Do With Itself in Prime-Time


A year old, but still correct.

 

[saveliberty]

Media is almost incapable of discerning fact any more. I just watched a commerical about the #1 new show on ABC. Problem is, it hasn't aired yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's go with that definition then, I'll give you that.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

The fact that many people seem to believe and/or be comfortable with two different realities aka truths, is evidence that they aren't based in reality themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Good job.

Did you miss the part where I provided a peer reviewed study about how truth is subjective to one's beliefs? If I present you with the fact that prove your worldview is wrong you will simply ignore them. Not your fault, simple human nature. Education only makes you more inclined to cling to your beliefs, which explains why many people can have a college degree and still believe that trickle down did not increase the relative wealth of the US.

Truth is, and always will be, subjective.

Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing. Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.

None of that changes the definition of what constitutes a fact. A fact is immutable, regardless of how people interpret it or what kind of meaning they attach to it.

Since I called MarcATL on his definition of a fact you are lecturing the wrong person.