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

[Uncensored2008]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

3. Your desire to silence Fox News isn't sufficient for most people to overturn the first amendment.

 

[manifold]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Mustang]

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?

Is Rush Limbaugh on TV?

I think we can relegate the liars to talk radio. Hell, getting the liars off the TV might actually make talk radio more competitive.

 

[Mustang]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

 

[manifold]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Yes, you suggested fining people. And you clearly didn't give two seconds worth of consideration to the practical application of your suggestion nor the law of unintended consequences.

The idea is beyond imbecilic.

 

[manifold]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

 

[Stephanie]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Is there ANYTHING some of you don't want to meddle in? Who is going to be the JUDGE AND JURY on whether what is said was a lie? Is is our fault some of you can't understand WHEN you are being lied to. Would you suggest we go back and fine BILL Clinton? stupid stupid idea, now carry on.

 

[Mustang]

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Yes, you suggested fining people. And you clearly didn't give two seconds worth of consideration to the practical application of your suggestion nor the law of unintended consequences.

The idea is beyond imbecilic.

There's nothing imbecilic about it at all. A person who gets a show on TV talking about current events is merely contractually obligated to be factually accurate in what he says. That means doing research and backing up one's claims with facts. For everything else, a person could state something to the effect that "x" was his opinion. If that person then makes a claim with he passes off as a fact, and it turns out to be untrue, he gets fined by his employer, and the fine (and what the fine is for) is noted at the beginning of a subsequent show.

 

[Mustang]

I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Is there ANYTHING some of you don't want to meddle in? Who is going to be the JUDGE AND JURY on whether what is said was a lie? Is is our fault some of you can't understand WHEN you are being lied to. Would you suggest we go back and fine BILL Clinton? stupid stupid idea, now carry on.

You ever hear of a fact checker? Newspapers and magazines employ them, as do reputable book publishers and their authors. I read once that George Will has one.

 

[daveman]

He just knows the truth about FoxNews and he's scared that if something like this were to happen, his favorite channel will have nothing to talk about.

You could be more stupid, but it would take some effort.

Damn, you lefties sure are afraid of Fox, aren't you?

Afraid of Fox? Why should we be afraid of Fox?

Because it disseminates Unapproved Thought. It exposes people to ideas dangerous to the Left. It's a media outlet you don't control. That's why you fear it, and that's why you hate it.

I was just commenting on your stupid picture showing a Muslim protest with a line pointing directly at Progressives. I'm more afraid of right wing extremism than I am of Fox. You fuckers are radicals. The muslim Picture could easily represent the Tea Party with a simple change of the Text... and it would probably be more accurate.

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Mustang]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

 

[Stephanie]

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Yes, you suggested fining people. And you clearly didn't give two seconds worth of consideration to the practical application of your suggestion nor the law of unintended consequences.

The idea is beyond imbecilic.

There's nothing imbecilic about it at all. A person who gets a show on TV talking about current events is merely contractually obligated to be factually accurate in what he says. That means doing research and backing up one's claims with facts. For everything else, a person could state something to the effect that "x" was his opinion. If that person then makes a claim with he passes off as a fact, and it turns out to be untrue, he gets fined by his employer, and the fine (and what the fine is for) is noted at the beginning of a subsequent show.

good gawd, you better RUN RIGHT OUT and arrest the BOY KING Obama. that man has told so MANY LIES on NATIONAL T.V., his nose goes like this..
and anyone tell you you would make a good little commie?

 

[manifold]

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Yes, you suggested fining people. And you clearly didn't give two seconds worth of consideration to the practical application of your suggestion nor the law of unintended consequences.

The idea is beyond imbecilic.

There's nothing imbecilic about it at all. A person who gets a show on TV talking about current events is merely contractually obligated to be factually accurate in what he says. That means doing research and backing up one's claims with facts. For everything else, a person could state something to the effect that "x" was his opinion. If that person then makes a claim with he passes off as a fact, and it turns out to be untrue, he gets fined by his employer, and the fine (and what the fine is for) is noted at the beginning of a subsequent show.

So now you want Fox News to fine Sean Hannity for improving ratings?

And if they don't want to, which of course they wouldn't, what then?

Do you even realize that your idea cannot be implemented without government oversight, which of course is exactly what makes it imbecilic.

 

[daveman]

In charge of what...the law?!??

No party is "in charge" of the law, you Dittohead, we're a nation of laws, not men.

It shouldn't matter WHO'S "in charge."

Capice?!?

No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

There are facts and there are lies.

Facts can be proven to be true.

For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.

Snap out of it!!!

Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation. That's not even debatable. Don't attempt it.

 

[manifold]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Then why do you have so much sand in your vagina?

 

[daveman]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

Will you support your idea if the GOP is in charge?

 

[daveman]

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?

Is Rush Limbaugh on TV?

I think we can relegate the liars to talk radio. Hell, getting the liars off the TV might actually make talk radio more competitive.

Again: Who decides what's a lie?

 

[Stephanie]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Then why do you have so much sand in your vagina?

they have the NERVE to tell the truth about the boyking and the Democrat party..

 

[daveman]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Then why do you have so much sand in your vagina?

This has been a public service message from USMB.

 

[manifold]

Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.

He has given us the euphamism "spending cuts in the tax code", which by all intellectually honest accounts means increases in tax revenues and not a 'cut' in spending at all.

You'd have a pundit on Fox News declaring: Obama's budget proposal does not include any spending cuts.

You'd have a pundit on MSNBC declaring: Obama's budget proposal includes targeted spending cuts.

Two pundits declaring the exact opposite. But which one gets fined I wonder?

So Poontang, who is lying in this example?