Should pure political propaganda continue to be advertised as news?

[mmonk]

Should we go back to a more information real news based news media? Or do you like equal weight given to say a political lie to an unreported reality? Can or will our news media be changed?

[Laelth]

1. Freedom of speech.

Of course those of us in the reality-based world would prefer reality-based media, but how can we force private companies to provide that without shredding the Constitution?

:shrug:

Personally, I think we need three, privately-owned, liberal news networks to counter Fox.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mmonk]

4. I remember whe we could have public television and radio report

without being taken over and changed by a political party through threats of defunding. Free speech isn't exactly enforced through free enterprise. We should have basic rules to protect the public and journalists feeling free to report without without reprimand or loss of job. We seem to have a population that knows less about what its government is doing than people in other countries. I can't really see how that is healthy.

[Laelth]

5. It's not healthy. I agree.

And PBS has become highly politicized (and mostly conservative). Journalists are not free to say whatever they want and keep their jobs at the same time.

All of what you say is true.

But it would also be a violation of the Constitution to pass any law that controls or seeks to shape political speech (the most protected and important form of speech we have).

I say beat them at their own game. We need liberal news networks to counter Fox.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mmonk]

6. I view free speech as more in terms of being able to air grievances

concerning one's government. Otherwise, it makes no sense. I also do not believe in "balance" if one position is not true (much like Murrow believed). I believe for something to be labeled news, it should be. I do not view restricting something advertised or promoted as news to being fact based as conflicting with free speech.

[Laelth]

7. I don't believe in "balance" either.

Not when one side is lying and the other is telling the truth. That's not "balance." That's legitimating the lie.

But you've touched upon an interesting area of the law, that being fraud, i.e. telling a lie and inducing another to act on that lie for one's benefit. Fraud is the problem, and fraud law has been dramatically eroded in the U.S. over the last half century. Due to a long string of court cases, people and corporations are, more than ever, free to lie with impunity, and the courts have repeatedly cited the 1st Amendment as their basis for allowing this deceptive and dangerous activity. We will need a vastly different Supreme Court in order to change this area of the law. A new law from Congress wouldn't do it. The Supreme Court would probably overturn the law. It will take a good long while, I think, before we could get some lasting precedent that would prevent the media from spreading obvious (or not-so-obvious) untruths.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MazeRat7]

2. I prefer writers who actually do reseach... the talking heads not so much. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Two problems. One is media consolidation. It would have to be undone.

The other situation that would have to change is the news area became a cost center. It would have to go back to being a public service arena in order to guarantee that the news and political propaganda are not intermixed, and sold as the same thing.

[deaniac21]

8. Depends on how you feel about Reuters.