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

[LockeJaw]

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?

 

[LockeJaw]

By the way, Count that YES as a HELL NO!!! I accidentally voted yes by mistake.

 

[LockeJaw]

Wow? Noone has an opinion on this? Y'all were just bickering about this?

 

[LockeJaw]

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?

 

[LockeJaw]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep it should be treated as fraud and repeated offenses should cause them to lose their liscence to broadcast or do business.

 

[uscitizen]

Of course political speeches/commentary are specifically exempt from truth in advertising laws.

 

[Ragnar]

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.

 

[LockeJaw]

Of course political speeches/commentary are specifically exempt from truth in advertising laws.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

If it was done under the guise of political commentary it would be exempt from truth laws. Fox proved that in a court case.

 

[LockeJaw]

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.

Well why is it allowed to continue then?

 

[Peach]

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.

Well why is it allowed to continue then?

There is also EDITING, which occurs frequently.................................

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Well why is it allowed to continue then?

who do you think really controls our government?

 

[Katzndogz]

Media outlets who publish doctored, edited or false statements should be severely punished. The media is manufacturing the news then reporting on it as if it were real.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

This is a non-issue.

The buyer needs to beware in the marketplace of ideas as any other.

 

[Salt Jones]

Media outlets who publish doctored, edited or false statements should be severely punished. The media is manufacturing the news then reporting on it as if it were real.

Yep. Fox News does it all the time.

 

[Ragnar]

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.

Well why is it allowed to continue then?

I'm no legal expert, just somewhat of a first amendment purist.

My guess is that this problem is happening less than ever... just getting reported on more due to the expanding media market. In a more competitive market individual stations can ill afford these kinds of mistakes (or blatant lies). New media will pounce on them.

That is why corrections came out so fast whereas in the olden days it would be slow if at all. Speaking for myself I'm glad trust in the media islower than ever. People will just have to start thinking for themselves.

Good thing Al Gore invented the interwebs.

Weather Zimmerman is guilty or not though he still might have the right to sue some asses off. (I dunno the specific legalities here)

 

[whitehall]

I'm not in favor of more stringent FCC regulations. If the media outlet gets caught intentionally doctoring information the consumer punishes them.

 

[LockeJaw]

If it was done under the guise of political commentary it would be exempt from truth laws. Fox proved that in a court case.

Well I'm not so much concerned with political opinion shows. Everyone knows thats what they are. They shouldn't get away with outright lies either, but I'd say 9-10 the talking head, left or right, who is getting called a liar by hacks from biased watchdog groups and their phone banks merely got something twisted and wasn't lying to turn public favor. They just got the facts wrong or the source they're quoting did. We have politifact for those shows.

I'm talking about the actual news for the most part blatantly trying to form your opinions for you by misleading people, withholding pertinent facts, and other underhanded tactics activists who pretend to be journalists and "just the facts" types.

They're more dangerous because they are given trust that at this point, they do nOt deserve, looking at their track record for quite a few years.

 

[Ragnar]

If it was done under the guise of political commentary it would be exempt from truth laws. Fox proved that in a court case.

Well I'm not so much concerned with political opinion shows. Everyone knows thats what they are. They shouldn't get away with outright lies either, but I'd say 9-10 the talking head, left or right, who is getting called a liar by hacks from biased watchdog groups and their phone banks merely got something twisted and wasn't lying to turn public favor. They just got the facts wrong or the source they're quoting did. We have politifact for those shows.

I'm talking about the actual news for the most part blatantly trying to form your opinions for you by misleading people, withholding pertinent facts, and other underhanded tactics activists who pretend to be journalists and "just the facts" types.

They're more dangerous because they are given trust that at this point, they do nOt deserve, looking at their track record for quite a few times.

I agree and also agree on the danger though I think we are headed in the right direction. Traditional media is slowly (painfully slowly) loosing that trust.

The solution is this thread, and others. Facebook and the like can spread the word. Letters to the editor work when written well and in enough volume.