"Certifying" New Agencies.

[Skull Pilot]

Great more idiots who want to trust the ******* government to tell them what and what not to watch, read or listen to.

Here's a tip: you should want to read watch and listen to what the government tells you not to.

Well not exactly..

I was thinking more a public/private committee of some sort.

And it wouldn't restrict anything.

It would be less intrusive then "Health Inspectors".

Public means government. We don't need the ******* government to tell us what is or is not worth watching, reading or listening to and we certainly don't need to pay them more taxes to do so.

 

[Sallow]

Great more idiots who want to trust the ******* government to tell them what and what not to watch, read or listen to.

Here's a tip: you should want to read watch and listen to what the government tells you not to.

Well not exactly..

I was thinking more a public/private committee of some sort.

And it wouldn't restrict anything.

It would be less intrusive then "Health Inspectors".

Public means government. We don't need the ******* government to tell us what is or is not worth watching, reading or listening to and we certainly don't need to pay them more taxes to do so.

The government already says that Janet Jackson's pasty covered breast is not suitable for public consumption during the super bowl.

I would like them to be involved with work a bit more important then that. And if it's being part of a committee that verifies that a news story is accurate..I am for it.

This is not about censorship...because you could still broadcast what ever the heck you wanted.

 

[boedicca]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

What an appalling plan to destroy the First Amendment.

You'd make a good little Soviet Aparatchik.

 

[Ernie S.]

Lets see who should be running the Ministry of Truth.....or better yet the Ministry of Propaganda.

How about Alan Grayson,he would be perfect.. ( He's also free...didn't get re elected)
How about Arlen Specter,He also isn't doing anything.
How about Chris Dodd.You know one of the guys responsible for our situation right now with the economy.

I'd go with Al, The Debate is Over, Gore. Hell he's won a Nobel, hasn't he?

 

[Sallow]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

What an appalling plan to destroy the First Amendment.

You'd make a good little Soviet Aparatchik.

Well I am sure you are on the street protesting "Free speech zones" while making sure there is no such thing as "Obscenity rulings" against broadcasters and especially vigilant against cities issuing permits to gather on public property to make political statements..right?

Or are you a commie?

 

[Sallow]

Lets see who should be running the Ministry of Truth.....or better yet the Ministry of Propaganda.

How about Alan Grayson,he would be perfect.. ( He's also free...didn't get re elected)
How about Arlen Specter,He also isn't doing anything.
How about Chris Dodd.You know one of the guys responsible for our situation right now with the economy.

I'd go with Al, The Debate is Over, Gore. Hell he's won a Nobel, hasn't he?

So I guess your against the movie ratings system as well..

Everyone gets to see any picture..regardless of age..

 

[Ernie S.]

Lets see who should be running the Ministry of Truth.....or better yet the Ministry of Propaganda.

How about Alan Grayson,he would be perfect.. ( He's also free...didn't get re elected)
How about Arlen Specter,He also isn't doing anything.
How about Chris Dodd.You know one of the guys responsible for our situation right now with the economy.

Basically..this is not about creating a ministry.

Seriously..we've had "freed speech zones". You have to get a permit to "assemble" in any city. This doesn't even go that far. I'm not talking about restricting anything.

I just think it would be nice if there were a method of verifying stories..without having to go to several sources first.

And..a mechanism to keep those organizations that want to be taken seriously as news, to do just that..and not always go for the sensational.

And who gets to judge the veracity? Who gets to appoint the committee? Is this a Cabinet level post or maybe obama names a "Truth Czar"? Who does he name? How about Bill Clinton? I can't think of a more honest man, can you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Lets see who should be running the Ministry of Truth.....or better yet the Ministry of Propaganda.

How about Alan Grayson,he would be perfect.. ( He's also free...didn't get re elected)
How about Arlen Specter,He also isn't doing anything.
How about Chris Dodd.You know one of the guys responsible for our situation right now with the economy.

I'd go with Al, The Debate is Over, Gore. Hell he's won a Nobel, hasn't he?

So I guess your against the movie ratings system as well..

Everyone gets to see any picture..regardless of age..

Oh, I'm for the movie rating system. I'd just rate "An Inconvenient Truth" very low.

 

[Sallow]

Lets see who should be running the Ministry of Truth.....or better yet the Ministry of Propaganda.

How about Alan Grayson,he would be perfect.. ( He's also free...didn't get re elected)
How about Arlen Specter,He also isn't doing anything.
How about Chris Dodd.You know one of the guys responsible for our situation right now with the economy.

Basically..this is not about creating a ministry.

Seriously..we've had "freed speech zones". You have to get a permit to "assemble" in any city. This doesn't even go that far. I'm not talking about restricting anything.

I just think it would be nice if there were a method of verifying stories..without having to go to several sources first.

And..a mechanism to keep those organizations that want to be taken seriously as news, to do just that..and not always go for the sensational.

And who gets to judge the veracity? Who gets to appoint the committee? Is this a Cabinet level post or maybe obama names a "Truth Czar"? Who does he name? How about Bill Clinton? I can't think of a more honest man, can you?

Without the hyperbole?

I would think it should be equal numbers of people from all political affiliations (well the 2 major ones) people from media and press...and yes..corporate interests.

And it would probably have no more "weight" then rating a video game or something. Probably less then that.

 

[Ernie S.]

This much I can guaranty: Fox will still have better ratings than MSNBC regardless of what the truth detectors say.

 

[Sallow]

This much I can guaranty: Fox will still have better ratings than MSNBC regardless of what the truth detectors say.

That seriously is not the point.

Accuracy in media, in my opinion, is just as important as free speech. News agencies should not be "lying" to the public.

Once propaganda is allowed to be passed off as news..then there is a risk that other parts of society begin to "change"..and normally not in a good way.

 

[Sallow]

And "Wrestling" still gets good ratings despite the fact it's been labeled "entertainment" as opposed to a "sport".

Just now..no one is arguing that it is real.

 

[DiveCon]

Accuracy In Media

Media Matters for America

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

i'm sure there are more
but those 3 came off the top of my head

do we really need an "official" one?

 

[Sallow]

Accuracy In Media

Media Matters for America

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

i'm sure there are more
but those 3 came off the top of my head

do we really need an "official" one?

Actually..yes.

Those outlets are easily dismissed as being partisan...one way or the other.

 

[DiveCon]

Accuracy In Media

Media Matters for America

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

i'm sure there are more
but those 3 came off the top of my head

do we really need an "official" one?

Actually..yes.

Those outlets are easily dismissed as being partisan...one way or the other.

given the fact there are others as well, never trust a single source

 

[Ernie S.]

This much I can guaranty: Fox will still have better ratings than MSNBC regardless of what the truth detectors say.

That seriously is not the point.

Accuracy in media, in my opinion, is just as important as free speech. News agencies should not be "lying" to the public.

Once propaganda is allowed to be passed off as news..then there is a risk that other parts of society begin to "change"..and normally not in a good way.

Take for instance the health care reform debate. obama said it would not raise premiums and everyone could keep their current plans. Fox presented talking head after talking head disputing that. Let's go back in time one year and rate Fox for truthfulness.
If we had some government panel rating news sources at that point, it would have agreed with obama, because if it didn't, the members would have been replaced.

 

[DiveCon]

This much I can guaranty: Fox will still have better ratings than MSNBC regardless of what the truth detectors say.

That seriously is not the point.

Accuracy in media, in my opinion, is just as important as free speech. News agencies should not be "lying" to the public.

Once propaganda is allowed to be passed off as news..then there is a risk that other parts of society begin to "change"..and normally not in a good way.

Take for instance the health care reform debate. obama said it would not raise premiums and everyone could keep their current plans. Fox presented talking head after talking head disputing that. Let's go back in time one year and rate Fox for truthfulness.
If we had some government panel rating news sources at that point, it would have agreed with obama, because if it didn't, the members would have been replaced.

yet it turns out fox news was right

funny how that is, isnt it
LOL

 

[Sallow]

This much I can guaranty: Fox will still have better ratings than MSNBC regardless of what the truth detectors say.

That seriously is not the point.

Accuracy in media, in my opinion, is just as important as free speech. News agencies should not be "lying" to the public.

Once propaganda is allowed to be passed off as news..then there is a risk that other parts of society begin to "change"..and normally not in a good way.

Take for instance the health care reform debate. obama said it would not raise premiums and everyone could keep their current plans. Fox presented talking head after talking head disputing that. Let's go back in time one year and rate Fox for truthfulness.
If we had some government panel rating news sources at that point, it would have agreed with obama, because if it didn't, the members would have been replaced.

Commentary is not news.

 

[JWBooth]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Oh thats just a hell of an idea. The state approved media certified by the ministry of truth and accuracy.

 

[Sallow]

This would probably be very controversial..but what the heck.

The Idea is to grant certification to News Organizations. This would probably be done by a panel of politicians/media industry personal and academics. There would be 2 types of certifications.

Accurate and unbiased - Refers to organizations that report news in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Accurate - Refers to organizations that report news in an accurate manner.

All certified news organizations would either have perference or solo access to press conferences and the like.

One could lose certification by publishing false stories without retraction within 72 hours.

This of course would in no way keep anyone from broadcasting "News". It would just insure accuracy.

Oh thats just a hell of an idea. The state approved media certified by the ministry of truth and accuracy.

Not quite.