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

[midcan5]

Truth, honesty are often in the eye of the beholder, actually they are probably always in the eye of the beholder. BS too is in the same place, has anyone given any examples of a lie that was punishable? I'd be curious. Sometimes the truth, assuming we can get a handle on it, is unwelcome.

"In contrast to the petabytes of data flotsam, half-truths and speculation that drift daily around the Internet, WikiLeaks spews forth unvarnished, sensitive truths." Misha Glenny

Sometimes lies have great power.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?" Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel

Sometimes the truth needs a faithful Tonto.

"I say it to you now, knowing full well that you will agree with me (that is, understand) only if you already agree with me." Stanley Fish

Sometimes the truth is just a kinda truth.

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us...This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." Neil Postman 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'

Sometimes the truth is really BS well not really.

"It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." Harry Frankfurt

Sometimes the truth is really just an argument for a truth.

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things." The Argumentative Theory | Conversation | Edge

Sometimes the truth is two truths.

"No two historians ever agree on what happened, and the damn thing is they both think they're telling the truth." Harry S. Truman

Sometimes argument leads to truth.

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends." David Hume

Sometimes the truth has two sides.

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides." John Stuart Mill

Sometimes you have to test the truth.

"What is so wonderful about scientific truth, however, is that the authority which determines whether there can be debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests with experiment." In Defense of Nonsense

Sometimes the truth travels too slowly.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Winston Churchill

Sometime the truth is poetic- and with that I bring this exercise to an end as it could go on forever.....

"Poetry is the art of uniting pleasure with truth." Samuel Johnson

 

[Flopper]

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Yes, the first amendment protects liars provided those lies do not constitute libel or scandal.

What is more scandalous than what lies have done to this country lately?

I have been following politics for 50 years and without exception every political figure lies in one way or another. Today's lies are no worse than yesterdays lies. What is worse today is the repetition and embellishment by the media.

By today's standards a mistake is a lie as is reversal of positions or a facial expression. Even silence is interpreted as a lie.

 

[westwall]

The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again. Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem.

No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed. End of story.

 

[daveman]

To summarize this thread:

Well, actually, 2 of the 5 people who support this idea are "Conservatives", and as many "Liberals" voted "no" as did "yes".

But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good partisan rant, right?

Who started the thread?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Are you aware that animals mark their territory with feces? Look it up. It's true.

In prehistoric times apes marked their territory by slinging feces around the perimeter of it. Man does the exact same thing, only he slings his feces with a pen, pencil, and words to mark off his territory. You're welcome. I knew you would enjoy that!

 

[American Horse]

No; the remedy lies with the injured party in a civil lawsuit. If such a law were to be passed it would be used as a bludgeon against certain parties who did not hold "popular" sentiment while those who did, and whose public statements (TV) were more egregious would be immune. Such a law would become a tool of persecution against the political "outs" and a free pass for the "ins"

It's why we have the First Amendment.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again. Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem.

No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed. End of story.

Most political campaigns are based on lies. Voters aren't forced to listen. They listen because they want to. In politics, no one is really interested in truth.

 

[Sunshine]

No; the remedy lies with the injured party in a civil lawsuit. If such a law were to be passed it would be used as a bludgeon against certain parties who did not hold "popular" sentiment while those who did, and whose public statements (TV) were more egregious would be immune. Such a law would become a tool of persecution against the political "outs" and a free pass for the "ins"

It's why we have the First Amendment.

But the job market would pick up. Just look at how many court cases there would be and the number needed to be employed!

 

[daveman]

 

[MarcATL]

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.

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

 

[daveman]

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.

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

Will you support such a law if the GOP is in charge?

 

[mudwhistle]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Political advocacy by the press??

Well, that's different.

 

[Dude111]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Yes people have a right to voice what they feel is the truth!

 

[Avatar4321]

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

You mean if they claim to be a natural 38DDD and they really are not?

Who's going to measure?

Im sure there are many who would like that position.... look we are creating jobs people want to have!

 

[Avatar4321]

You have a penchant for absurdity. That's great in comedy. Not so great if you want to be taken seriously.

It's easy to be absurd with absurd propositions.

Who exactly gets to decide what is a lie or not?

I didn't use the word, lie, in the subject line or in the poll question. I also indicated that not all lies are created equal.

So, if a person lies on the air about his favorite color, who am I to care? But if a politician or a political commentator lies about what specifically is in a piece of legislation (just as an example), that's a false claim or a false statement of fact. Either the person making that statement is knowingly giving false information because of various possible motivations, or he doesn't know what he's talking about, and better start researching the topics to which he's passing himself off as being knowledgeable, considering that he's on the air and speaking to hundreds of thousands of people at any given moment.

Still avoiding the question. Who gets to decide?

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again. Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem.

No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed. End of story.

Most political campaigns are based on lies. Voters aren't forced to listen. They listen because they want to. In politics, no one is really interested in truth.

Speak for yourself, my friend.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again. Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem.

No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed. End of story.

Most political campaigns are based on lies. Voters aren't forced to listen. They listen because they want to. In politics, no one is really interested in truth.

Speak for yourself, my friend.

Successful campaigning is finding out what voters want to hear and presenting it to them in such a way that they believe it is the truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You want to implement a department of truth to make sure no one lies on TV or the internet? What should we call it, Pravda?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Not only that, I think it extends to you making a fool of yourself.

 

[daveman]

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.

You want to implement a department of truth to make sure no one lies on TV or the internet? What should we call it, Pravda?

How about the Ministry of Truth?