MovieChat Forums > Politics > A possible solution to fake news

A possible solution to fake news

posted 3 years ago by ultravioletx (10216)
27 replies | jump to latest

Fake news is so prominent in politics is because campaign ads and candidates are not held to the same standard as the rest of us.

Campaign ads and candidates can slander others at will. The media cannot say those things themselves, but when a politician says it first, the media reports on it which allows them to repeat it.

Since laws prevent the media from originating those claims themselves, perhaps politicians should also be subjected to those same restrictions.

What if reforms were made so that political candidates were held to the same standard as media platforms? Would it damage the GOP? Would it maybe end Trumpism?

[–] Redsfan001 (6012) 3 years ago

What ones persons slander is another's honest criticism of a opposing candidate/encumbant.

This is very large gray area.

Who is to be the arbitrator of what is over the line?

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

"What ones persons slander is another's honest criticism of a opposing candidate/encumbant."

Not if you're the media.

Alex Jones can get sued by saying Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Political candidates can avoid it.

Fox News can get sued by saying Stormy Daniels lied about the non-disclosure agreement. Political candidates can avoid it.

The media is held to a different standard, which is why the majority of Fox News resisted against the claims of voter fraud. Hannity, Ingraham, Newsmax and OAN got away with it by specifically parroting what Trump, Giuliani and McEnany told them.

[–] Redsfan001 (6012) 3 years ago

Stormy Daniels sued Trump for defamation of character, and lost.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Like I said, different rules for the media. Ask Nick Sandmann.

[–] Redsfan001 (6012) 3 years ago

No she was ABLE to sue, she just lost.

Media companies can be guided by lawyers, they don't always follow their advice if it is a good story.

60 minutes, NYT disregarded their own lawyers advice many times to publish/ televise a story.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Oh come on, you know what I meant. Anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody. What I'm saying is you cannot win that lawsuit against a candidate. Also, Trump wasn't campaigning when he said it and neither was Daniels.

Loeffler can say Warnock is a radical liberal who will destroy America. Fox News can't say it unless someone like Loeffler says it first.

[–] Redsfan001 (6012) 3 years ago

🤔 I like your idea of toning down the negativity in political attacks. I agree with Biden that the heat has been on high for too long.

But I guess democracy and freedom of speech need to go hand in hand.

Incumbents and prospective legislators have been attacking each other since forever. Them suing each other for defamation during a election would seem odd.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

I'm fine with freedom of speech. None of us have the right to defame though because it impedes on someone else's freedom. That's the one catch freedom of speech cannot avoid. But a candidate running for office is allowed to defame his political opponent in pretty much every conceivable way which doesn't seem right.

[–] chilone (17296) 3 years ago

Ca'mon man! He didn't say anything about the heat in the last four years.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

The same way capitalism ruins health care is the same way capitalism ruins news ... especially in a country where everything is based on money. It used to be that if you were the town bigshot you opened a newspaper, and later a radio or TV station and you broadcast the mindset you wanted everyone to have, along with enough public interest stuff to convince residents that you had their best interests at heart. Now there is so much dishonest, fake new, there is barely the room for or ability to do anything else. The Right-wing extremists are buying up and creating a lot of little local web news sites because people not paying attention think the world is extreme right-wing when they go online and that is all they see.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Capitalism ruins news by making them go with more salacious headlines (still true stories) over the more informative ones that are more helpful but less entertaining.

It wasn't always like that. I think it was the 50s where networks were required by law to run news programs that were subsidized by the government. Some time later the government stopped subsidizing them, so the networks had to find a way for their news program to compete with other network programs to justify the expensive air time it was eating up. News has sucked ever since.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

News shows as far as I know where never subsidized by the government. But the radio and TV bandwidth were ruled as public resources, as I think they still are, and the price for using them was for the big networks to devote so much time for public affair broadcasting in the public interest. We used to hear it every night when the TV stations signed off the air. There was still a lot that was done to tow the government's line, but I think we were better off back then than we are today with the vicious lies and partisan BS that just seems to get louder and more outrageous every day.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Either they were subsidized by the government, or they were making enough prior to 1980 to not have to add entertainment to their news block. The major transformation happened between 1980 and 2000.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

The country's founders took the free and independent media as a must-have for democracy, and they backed it up by subsidies. I just heard that on this TheAnalysis-News podcast interview with Robert McChesney around the 15 minute mark. That was one major reason for the Post Office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZdxwP6PZk4

So the question today is how do we subsidize the news without the government controlling it? This is a good discussion.

[–] chilone (17296) 3 years ago

Yes. China, Russia, North Korea and Venezuela have awesome and true news!

[–] Bloodworth79 (5575) 3 years ago

It's called the ignore button...what do you people think about the national inquire? That's real news?

People and news outlets can write any thing they want..its up to people to decide.

I would never ban any person, just ignore them.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

But then you end up with people sieging the capitol because they believe the election was rigged to destroy America.

Also, you didn't seem to read the entire OP. The media can't write whatever they want. Remember your beloved Nick Sandmann?

[–] Bloodworth79 (5575) 3 years ago

For 3 years Democrats claimed russian collusion. Trump was not legit. 3 year investigation.
And we never saw all these witnesses testify to such lies.

But Republicans claim Biden is not legit and with a month the Democrats said nope, investigation open and closed. Move on

And so many people testifying. To vote counters to mail delivery drivers.

Democrats are a shady group

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Dems reported the truth. You just didn't want to hear what they had to say.

You didn't care that Guccifer 2.0 hacked into the DNC and gave the info to Wikileaks around the time Trump told Russia they would be rewarded for finding Hillary's emails.

You didn't care that Trump's campaign adviser Roger Stone was caught threatening people and emailing others saying he had access to Wikileaks' illegally obtained information.

You didn't care that Trump fired the original FBI director in charge of the investigation, replacing him with Mueller which added a year to the investigation.

You didn't care that Trump used his presidency to interfere with the Mueller investigation, even going as far as to fire his DOJ and hire a new one SPECIFICALLY to castrate the Mueller report.

To you, it was all fake because Trump said so.

Also, you didn't care that Hillary Clinton testified a dozen times in an investigation that lasted for SIX years.

[–] sut6432 (2836) 3 years ago

Thank you so much for this post! I really appreciate it! A voice of reason in all of this censorship madness is so nice to read.

Honestly, this entire thread is disgusting, and it is one political issue that I am truly passionate about, and that is protecting free speech from these asshat dipshit morons who all of the sudden think they can ban anything they feel like! It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide! Personal fucking responsibility!

These psycho liberal censors coming out of the woodwork starting to attack free speech like it’s going out of style are pathetic human beings! I fear these morons talking about banning everything more than rioter morons storming the Capital building. They really feel they have the moral high ground by banning and censoring things, and that is truly frightening.

News can put whatever they want out there! It’s up to YOU to decide whats real or not! It’s NOT having a censorship bureau to decide for you! My god you people are sickening! You want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, you want to destroy the American Dream by implementing socialism to end creativity, innovation, and hard work...and now you’re trying to censor and ban speech that you disagree with! Seriously, eat shit! You are a disgrace!

It’s amazing your heads can fit through a door when you go somewhere. What other areas of people’s lives do you want to control you nut jobs?

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

You didn't read the OP.

The media CANNOT (that's the opposite of can) put whatever they want out there. They expose themselves to lawsuits by saying things such as a political opponent is going to destroy America. And if they report something incorrectly, they have to give a retraction. Politicians get to speak those lies, and because the politician said it first, the media gets to repeat them.

The stuff that you say the media can do without any limits is all narrative stuff. That's because you cannot ban narrative. Banning narrative would basically require the removal of the first amendment.

But you don't want to have any of those discussions. You want to bitch about liberals because that's what entertains you.

[–] Freddy (1317) 3 years ago

agree shame the news media just sends out live all the lies

[–] Rorikon (16442) 3 years ago

Very grey area, especially when they had so many signed sworn affidavits but were all tossed out due to them being all so random and inconsistent and none of them charged if lying since they're all hearsay.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

True. I wish those phony affidavits weren't able to let him brainwash so many people.

[–] chilone (17296) 3 years ago

Yes, because the Democrat party is SOOOO honest and of impeccable moral character!

[–] Keelai (32038) 3 years ago

"What if reforms were made..."

You're talking about the Fairness Doctrine!

The Republicans, at the direction from big business and the rich, destroyed that legislation a few decades ago in order to be able to influence ignorant viewers and listeners with lies and propaganda.

It used to be illegal for radio and TV to purposely misinform the public. And if candidate A lied about candidate B on a station, then candidate B had to be given equal time for a rebuttal.

As soon as the law was repealed, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News were allowed to exist since they could lie without repercussions including lies about candidates or politicians.

Other broadcasts laws were repealed, too.

Control media and you control public opinion.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Pretty much yeah. The Fairness Doctrine covers most of it.