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

[Quantum Windbag]

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!!!!

You are thanking him for agreeing with me.

 

[Flopper]

You may not be able to manufacture news today, but you can certainly embellish it to the point that it has little resemblance to the truth.

Perhaps, but that's irrelevant as there are dozens of other sources which offer the other side of the story. And that's what really distresses the fascist left, that Fox News offers facts and angles of stories that the party doesn't want known.

Surfing the Internet for news is about as reliable as listening to conversations overheard at the grocery store.

So about 5000 times more reliable than getting news from the leftist media, then?



Generally, what you claim is false. Fox VERY clearly distinguishes editorial and news content. Hannity is commentary - no one but the left is confused by that. Of course MSNBC put that fucking goon Olbermann as their Anchor, but the left is sans integrity.

The exception is the established news outlets, major networks and newspapers where they actually have journalists not just writers.

ROFL

The worst offender for editorializing on the front page is the leftist LA Times.

They have a name and reputation to protect, unlike many of the so called internet news organizational.

Yer killing me man...

{Rick Bragg, 43, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author for The New York Times, resigned on May 28, around controversial practices involving freelance reporters.

While Rick Bragg used his byline on a story written by freelancers, he told the Associated Press (AP) that the atmosphere at the Times had become torturous. The New York Times says it should have attributed the story byline to Rick Bragg and the freelancer on the scene. Jayson Blair But Rick Bragg told the AP it is common practice to leave freelancers out of print. It is impossible for a freelancer to get a byline at The New York Times, he said.

The freelancer, J. Wes Yoder, a recent college graduate wrote Rick Bragg's piece for free.

Jayson Blair, 27, resigned from The New York Times in April after the newspaper found fraud, plagiarism, and inaccuracies in 36 of 73 stories authored by Jayson Blair. Both incidents have The New York Times reviewing its editorial and hiring practices, and rethinking its use of freelancers.

According to Rick Bragg, he was intent on leaving The New York Times anyway, to fulfill two book contracts with Random House. Do you think he'll use the story J. Wes Yoder wrote for him? }

T&A: New York Times, Bragg, Blair, Yoder

The NY Times, all the fraud that serves the party...

Perhaps, but that's irrelevant as there are dozens of other sources which offer the other side of the story.

IMHO, you will find the most unbiased news coming from news sources with the most diverse audience. TV writers and commentators structure their material to please their audience. Fox News has 3 times as many Republican viewers as Democrats. MSNBC has twice as many Democrats as Republicans. Too think that you will get objectivity from either of these news sources is ridiculous. You can't take news written for the right and combine it with news written for left and come up with the real story. Two lies never equal the truth.

http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/03/political-party-affiliation-varies-among-u-s-news-sites/

 

[eots]

one thing i've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of bs in the world. It takes many forms. You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...

Personally, i'm sick of it. Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it. They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.

But what about when it comes into your home via tv or the internet?

While there are truth in advertising laws when it comes to companies making claims about their products, politicians, and partisan tv commentators can seemingly say anything they want, regardless of how outrageously untrue it is, and there are no consequences.

I know that some false statements are honest mistakes. I also know that many false statements and claims are intentional. People are intentionally trying to muddy the waters and confusing honest people in the process.

So, in the interest of honest political debate on the issues, and in keeping with the need to insure that the public is honestly informed on those issues, should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on tv? For the sake of argument, i won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on tv, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on tv for a specific period of time.

If this plan was implemented, there shouldn't be as many people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues because they've been manipulated by dishonest people

yet...you appear to be one of them... interesting