Should Media Outlets Be Allowed To Doctor Audio And Video Without Consequence??

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by LockeJaw, Apr 5, 2012.

?

Should News Media Be Allowed To Doctor Audio and Video Without Consequence Under F/S

  1. Yes

    40.0%
  2. No

    60.0%
  1. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    Should The Media Be Allowed To Doctor Video And Audio W/O Consequence
    With the recent news of national media outlets doctoring video and audio to put forth a story to manipulate the public's opinions, I have to ask if they can just get away with this Scott free under free speech? I think it's akin to inciting a riot or better yet the example of "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre".

    I know this is a touchy subject and I am all for free speech, but this sort of thing should be cause for concern. Americans cherish their free speech. That's true of right, left, and center. And most of us hate the idea of big government stifling free speech and any suggestion of such a measure would draw the screams of fascist and nazi and no doubt a few "grass roots" movements would form overnight.

    If we pretty much have a concensus that we do not want the Feds or other gov agency outlawing falsifying information for media outlets, what can we do?

    One idea I have is to have a market based grading system for the cable networks, etc.. I haven't thought it out as I'm typing this on the fly.

    What do you folks think?
     
  2. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    By the way, Count that YES as a HELL NO!!! I accidentally voted yes by mistake.
     
  3. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    Wow? Noone has an opinion on this? Y'all were just bickering about this?
     
  4. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    In a way, I think this is equally important as the individual mandate case. Because this is blatant attempts at brainwashing the viewers a.k.a the people. Now I'm not asking for any new law. There are representative groups for damn near anything you can think of under the sun. But no organization for truth in journalism and television news, that's sole purpose is to hold them accountable for their manipulation of information that is not biased defensive of the right or left sides of the aisle. If there are, they obviously aren't getting the support and face time with the public they should.

    We see how media matters organIzed a boycott Campaign on Limbaugh recently. We have what's his face Brent Bozell on the right. How about we demand truth and form a market based organization that is for nothing but the truth for the those of us of all political stripes who are sick of seeing once trustworthy sources becoming propagandists for various causes that do not care about anything but pushing an agenda?
     
  5. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    Last post until the thread gets some replies.

    This organization would buy ad space on television, radio, newspapers, etc. It cannot hurt your company if you have their ad playing giving you an AAA rating. But it will if you are constantly bullshiting us. The lowest level would be FFF and any company that gets this rating is considered a propaganda mill.

    Sounds good to me. No new law. Accountable to its customers and society.
     
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Yep it should be treated as fraud and repeated offenses should cause them to lose their liscence to broadcast or do business.
     
  7. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Of course political speeches/commentary are specifically exempt from truth in advertising laws.
     
  8. Ragnar
    Offline

    Ragnar <--- Pic is not me

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,271
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Ratings:
    +843
    We already have all the solutions to the problems listed above.

    In law it's Libel, in the market place it's called a remote control.
     
  9. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    I agree with your first post in principle 100%.

    But I am curious what "truth in advertising laws" would have with the content of a program or content of the papers, etc? I admitt I am not too familiar with theses laws.
     
  10. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    If it was done under the guise of political commentary it would be exempt from truth laws. Fox proved that in a court case.
     

Share This Page