I understand the importance of Free Speech. I don't agree with censorship. But how about holding media responsible for their lies?
A big help would be people admitting they're all slanted and the rule truth lies somewhere in between.
real... not rule.
Just stop watching them. No audience, no sponsors, no show.
I don't think libel suits or penalties for retractions would really make any difference. Trump for example can sue the media for libel anytime he wants. But he'd have to go to great lengths to prove the stories being falsehoods. I think a good question is that if report after report is as fake as he makes it sound...why hasn't he sued? Why didn't Hillary sue? It's because they obviously can't meet the burden of proof. They'd only likely end up validating the story if they tried to take into a court and lost. You called them out as lies yourself....are you able to prove that their reporting is lies? Or are you just being told by a different media outlet that it's a lie? Like I said the other day we're going to believe what we agree with in most cases. That won't change regardless of what's done to the media. CNN will still be a hoax to the right, Fox News will still be trolls to the left.
You know, it really pisses me off when you make reasonable arguments.
Same as with any other business you are unhappy with...do not "do business" with them. Don't watch or subscribe to them.
make any kind of funding by any kind of politicians ILLEGAL! government shoud;l not be allowed to say what media can or cannot say, not liberal not neo conservatives,. all media must be PRIVATE 100% not funded by any interest groups either.
I've found not watching them works really well for me...
I would make a lie detector out of parts that I have lying around the island and they'd have to wear it whenever they read news reports...
They need to be held accountable, especially when their lies are blatant and cause damage to people. Carol Burnett won a defamation suit against the Inquirer. Most newspapers have sunk into sensationalism and lies to the point that the Inquirer almost seems like legitimate news.
It would be great that, like vampires, newspapers would crumple up and blow away when sunlight hits their pages and they are not telling the truth.
When televised news was aired, not for ratings, but for information, news was accurate. Now 24 hours has to be filled and ratings and advertising dollars dictate content.
That is where it has all gone wrong.
Accountability. If the media reports something, they should be required to prove that what they say is true. Freedom of the press has been bastardized to the point that instead of them having any credibility of truth, a person has to prove that what they are saying is false. Even when they have been proven to lie, there is no accountability.
Great comment, I wish politicians were also required to do the same
An armed revolution aimed against them.
That's something that we might think - but never say out loud, or worse put in print. Ixnay on evolutionray.
[But, you're probably right.]
That's what I think would need to happen to improve the media. I didn't call for a revolution, just stated the solution to your question.
I know Jerry.
No good revolution started with the words "Kill the media if they don't say what we want people to hear!!"
That's not even a hypothetical option worth considering, Jerry.
Agreed, the problem is that they're corrupt.
Maybe. Or maybe they're simply selling what people are buying...?
The trick is deciphering the facts from opinions disguised as facts. Get multiple sides of the story and make up your own mind. That's just the world we live in.
Where did we go wrong? When did it become OK to lie, stretch the truth, exaggerate with impunity?
Carla nailed it:
"When televised news was aired, not for ratings, but for information, news was accurate. Now 24 hours has to be filled and ratings and advertising dollars dictate content."
And it's not technically lying. It's a slanted truth. CNN, MSNBC, FOX... they all have about a 10% rate of telling the whole truth. The rest is slant. It's up to the audience to decide what to believe and to get a different POV.
Really? Lying vs slanted truth?
I understand that sometimes there are shades of gray. I understand that omitting crucial facts is different than a lie - more like intentional misleading. But there have also been outright lies.
The point is that the media can no longer be trusted. They have squandered the public trust - a valuable asset that used to keep them relevant.
I agree with you entirely, although I'd cite different examples from you if that were the question. : )
We'll always live in a world of yellow journalism as long as free speech is allowed. My point is that if people only pay attention to one side they're not gonna get the full scope of things.
I submit that yellow journalism is bad journalism, and should not be tolerated. News without an agenda should be the goal. Separate editorials are fine.
Once again, I agree. But it's not up to us to decide, we can only know how to decipher facts from opinions. An op-ed is easy to figure out... it's pure opinion and you either agree or you don't. If you care enough you'll look deeper.
What if we could insist that what they say is true / accurate?
That would be nice, but unconstitutional. : )
The biggest problem I'm seeing is that it's not what gets reported but how it gets reported. I'd love to see something where opinions show up in italics or --crossed out -- and facts show up in bold.
Is there an app for that?
Really? Insisting on honest reporting of news you think is unconstitutional?
I just Googled - "does the news have to tell the truth" - and apparently you a correct. (heavy sigh)
Sorry, man. : /
The media is allowed to report what they want, how they want. Keep in mind it does go both ways, though. Which, in my humble opinion, is big reason for the divisiveness we're experiencing -- not just here but anywhere free speech is allowed.
You, actually bothering to read it.