Should it be illegal for a news station or news paper to post false news? There is so much corruption in the media now. I am personally getting sick and tired of watching the news and seeing them post just completely false or inaccurate news. I am curious to see what others thoughts and opinions are on this subject.
I can think of a few cases where the media should be held accountable if unverified information leaked out and led to a riot, insurrection or coup. The media should also be held accountable if it accuses a company falsely of dumping toxic waste, for instance, in the municipal water supply. Independent news reporters, like the Associated Press sell their stories to all media outlets throughout the world, just to name one. If The Times, for example, picks up the lead then it's their job to verify it before printing it. It's the Editors job to make the finale ok after the legal team has approved it.
No media outlet wants to be sued as many reputations are on the line but unfortunately, lies, false accusations and coups do happen. All we can do as responsible citizens, is be vigilant, keeping our eyes and ears open while we quietly read bills presented to Congress and watch which ones the President signs so we know how to vote.
People believe that they want. The media merely encourages and prompts. It is up to the individual to decide what is true and what isn't. In all realativity the media isn't to blame, the person consuming the media is.
the prohibition amendment was created and then repealed...therefore any and all amendments are w/in theoretical possibility of being changed.
it is possible, although never done, for the states to come together and have some sort of legally sanctioned function that allows us, the citizens of this country, to come together and vote and change any thing we so choose...i've forgotten the terminology for it. i just know it exists. if the law exists and then is done away with then it is like it never existed as of the point in time in which its abolishment goes into affect.
i don't know the real term for it but there is a "rubber band clause" by which the government has the power to do anything it needs to do in order to ensure a properly working country. It is like at the end of one of the huge documents where they were like "oh and ps:..... we can do whatever we need to do if it comes down to it"
therefore all of this "oh they can't do that... they can't do this".... is completely meaningless... they can
now here's a piece of my message that's actually relevant to the topic at hand. Do all of you people who are old enough to remember the bombing of the Two Towers remember it?
well.... after the bombing the media showed a bunch of muslims out in a city square jumping up and down in celebration... cheering, extremely happy, etc.
I'm in college and one of my teachers... a very intelligent man with a doctorate in some form of literature who was also a former criminal negotiator (negotiated w/ criminals...not a criminal who negotiates) told my class that when the towers were bombed he had middle eastern kids in his class room. They were watching it all on tv once news spread that it had in fact occurred. they watched for a while... then whatever news station they were watching (it was a major one) showed the dancing middle easterners vid previously mentioned. Some of the kids got up immediately and went and got plane tickets and went home and didn't come back... others sat there and cried. He asked them about the dancing people... the ones that stayed said that the media was lying. The "dancing/cheering people" vid was stock footage of a bunch of people celebrating after having just been through their first democratic election over there in whatever country it was....
a memorable event to them b/c it had to do w/ home.... a not so memorable event to americans b/c it had nothing to do w/ our lives or families.
the media had used footage of a completely irrelevant event in order to lie to us and manipulate and enrage us.
I know what our ammendments and laws say.... that still doesn't make it right. For things to be made right it would in fact have to be illegal for the media to lie. I agree w/ freedom of the press up until the press interprets it as freedom to lie and say whatever they want.
Those kids in my teacher's class later told him that their families and even entire cities turned off all of their lights at night and hid because they were afraid of the American bombers that they were sure were coming that very night, and that were sure to continue to come until everything was burned and leveled to the ground.
so.... as i said. yes, i think it should be illegal for the media to lie
"Inaccurate" could be stretched so far. Let's say your news station is giving opinions that the majority in congress and the president disagree with. If some of your reporters make points that are considered inaccurate *zip*, there goes your news station. If the president and congress keep on doing that all media will give you the same voices. An exception here and there for our rights and it will all disappear soon enough.
it should, but medias lie for the benefit of the government. So why would the government put a law to stop that?
yeah the government has stuff to cover up >.>
they always lie to us but it's probably for the better i wouldn't want to know there was some crazy mutant loose from some secret government experiment
How exactly does the Patriot Act make the 1st amendment moot?
Nobody said moot. But lets analyze this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Patriot act passed, granting presidential powers to pretty much override this first amendment and a few other rights there is actually a lawsuit filed on this bill because it is in direct violation of the constitution. Wasn't saying it is moot. Was just saying maybe it says congress can't, but congress already has.
... First Amendment says Freedom of the Press. To make that illegal would be in direct violation of their rights.
I never said the press could not write what they want. It's very important that the press can right about what ever they want, who ever they want, on whatever topic they want. But I do feel that what they are writing needs to be factual or otherwise stated so. It's bull shit that a persons life and reputation can be ruined without repercussion just because the media can make false accusations and then hide behind the first amendment. I still say, there cannot be a freedom of the press, if the press is already bought and paid for.
Nope... im suggesting its lawyers galore that protect the big boys ass from stuff like this. Its not perfect, but when you have that much money, doesnt need to be perfect.
Media shouldn't lie to people and give them false info. People would think what media says is true.
If I see Godzilla vs Batman vs Chuck Norris vs Son Goku vs R2D2 vs Mr Roger vs Abraham Lincoln vs Lo Pan fight at the news though, I would say it's a ral story :P
This is the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny...
On topic - we can be sure that media outlets will embellish a story to draw viewers in and so perhaps it's a question of embellishment rather than outright lying.
