If The Media Would Listen They Would Know Four Things the 99% Want

[SHRED]

1) Reinstate Glass-Steagall
2) Reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
3) Pass a law that you can not deliberately lie and call it news, similar to Canada’s Canada’s Radio Act
4) Campaign finance reform

SOURCE: http://www.politicususa.com/en/if-they-media-would-listen-they-would-know-four-things-the-99-want


---

[SixthSense]

1. #3 is impossible to enforce

too many things are simply a matter of belief... the First Amendment would forbid it.

[RC]

3. There is a difference between a lie and an opinion.

A lie is when you know the truth and say something otherwise. Lies can be proved and countered on facts.
An opinion is a belief. False beliefs can be corrected with reality. (Also see above sentence)

So, #3 can be enforced and it is in Canada and used to be here in the United States. If it couldn't be enforced Fox News would not be trying to change the Canadian law so they can setup shop in Canada.

[SixthSense]

5. There are some clear calls, yes, but...

There are many things that are on the border between truth and lie and the interpretation of what is and is not the truth (who decides?) is virtually guaranteed to become an official censorship regime where truth that is uncomfortable to the powers that be are "lies" for the purposes of exercising power.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. "Belief" isn't news.

Non-factual news has no redeeming value, and since we own the airwaves over which it is disseminated, we have the authority to fix it.

[SixthSense]

7. Good luck with trying to set a standard that works

If you ask me, there are very few facts coming out of any of the major news outlets of any stripe. I don't think a single TV station, radio station, or newspaper could last a week under a strict interpretation of the rules you want to set.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Wouldn't last a week? And that would be bad?

Any standard is better than no standard.

If they'd collapse under the burden of telling me the truth, then let 'em collapse.

[yoyossarian]

16. Well, that's just your opinion...

Obviously there are some things that are grey areas... but when people repeat bullshit like "Obama has never shown his birth certificate" months or years after he did... see the diff, Biff? Or are you still mullin' that one over?

[redqueen]

9. Welcome to DU. (nt)

[Ineeda]

2. Spot on. I've always said Truth in advertising rules should be applied

to political ads. Here are the rules:

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
Advertisements cannot be unfair.

Deceptive advertising:
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

A typical inquiry follows these steps:

The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer". The FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures - to determine what it conveys to consumers.

The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.

The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product.

The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.

[eallen]

4. The 1st amendment would have to be repealed for #s 2 and 3....

Banking restrictions like those of Glass-Steagal are a good idea. And there is a lot that could be done with regard to campaign finance. For example, why not a federal law that bans corporate donations to political campaigns? As some states do.

But the notion of enforcing truth in journalism goes against American notions of free speech. Those of who look to Canada for an example should keep in mind that Canada doesn't have a 1st amendment. And has greater government interference in speech, for example, restricting certain kinds of hate speech.

Personally, I'm very fond of the 1st amendment.

:hippie:

[Fumesucker]

8. Canadians: Unarmed Americans wearing ball gags...

But at least they have the consolation prize of medical coverage.

[dpibel]

11. Citizens United

You say, "And there is a lot that could be done with regard to campaign finance. For example, why not a federal law that bans corporate donations to political campaigns? As some states do."

This indicates that you haven't the faintest idea what Citizens United is about. You should check it out.

Because the simple solution you suggest is precisely what Citizens United says you can't do.

[eallen]

14. I think you're wrong. Citizens United is NOT about campaign donations.

McCain-Feingold did a lot of things. One of the things it did was restrict what corporations and PACs could publish during certain times of a campaign. For example, endorsing a candidate.

Citizens United said that the court couldn't see how to distinguish that from a restriction on the press.

Now yes, endorsements and propaganda are quite helpful to a political campaign. But they're not the same thing as direct campaign donations. Citizens United did not overturn laws against corporate campaign donations. Tom DeLay's lawyers will argue otherwise. They want to keep their client out of jail. I expect that argument to fail.

BTW, the other thing Citizens United is not about is corporate personhood. The ruling did not say that corporations have the same rights as actual people. It said that "the press" that the 1st amendment directly protects includes corporations. Which is hard to argue -- newspapers were businesses in the framers' days.

:hippie:

[redqueen]

10. If the media wasn't used to push a narrative they'd have a reason to listen. (nt)

[spanone]

13. our media has been corrupted ....it's now media for profit

[Johonny]

15. Just simply for our government to be responsive to our needs

Our government can react quickly to civil unrest in Egypt or Libya. Can quickly promise aid in Japan or Haiti. But huge financial meltdown that effects 99 % of Americans... here's some more abortion legislation and how about a tax cut. Seriously, people feel the government is completely out of touch with the needs of the nation.

Herman Cain jumps to the top of the Republican list simply because he talks about an economic plan. Americans don't even care if it's a good plan. The point is here is someone at least talking about the economy. It beats candidates and elected officials offering the same old crap or birth certificate theatre. People want a government that acts on actual domestic issues and see improvement in their lives. Where is the long range planning for the country domestically?

[yoyossarian]

17. K&R!

n/t