I think it's time that we demand the "media" (newspapers and TV and radio) to define

[zbdent]

where they stand on matters of honest reporting.

(with a nod to this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x469773)

We should demand that they affirm that what they are claiming is truth. If they feel that the claim is true, make that their position. MAKE THEM TAKE THAT AS WHERE THEY STAND ON THE ISSUE. And, if it's proven wrong, they'll lose credibility and have to own up to it. No less was demanded of Dan Rather ... because he couldn't absolutely prove that the Bush document wasn't a fake, he was crucified. The Birthers can't prove Obama's birth certificate is fake, yet they're getting air time, and Dobbs is still employed. Chuck Norris has taken the "non-position" position of being a Birther by just saying "Why doesn't Obama just release the birth certificate???" (He has, it's been proven, and you're still f*cking nuts, Carlos ...) Legit questions were raised about whether or not Bush won the 2000 election, but anybody questioning it was never raised to the level that Birthers have been getting.

Whether it's about Obama's birth certificate, claims in the health care bill, or whatever.

I want a "news" source (Faux, CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) to stand up and say "It is the position of (fill-in-the-blank) that this is fact in X debate."

If, for example, the Wall Street Journal is giving coverage to the birthers, why doesn't it make its stand that the WSJ's position is that it has been proven that Obama's birth certificate is legit?

If Chris Matthews wants to be recognized as legit, will he take a stand on whether or not a claim by an opponent of Obama's health care is true or not? "Page XX of ObamaCare says you will have to schedule your euthanasia." Chris, if it's true, acknowledge it. If it's a lie, SAY SO! Don't just sit there and "debate" with the person. Call them on it, or verify it.

We would not need anything like a "Fairness Doctrine" if the "news" would stop trying to be propaganda (left or right), and start being honest and factual.

[MercutioATC]

1. Nice thought, but completely unrealistic.

Americans don't want to be given facts, they want to be told what to think...and they want to be entertained while they're being told.

[Birthmark]

2. The problem with the media is...

...facts won't make them a profit. When it turns out that one side actually has the facts on their side, debate becomes less interesting. Debate is what is making the "media" money. So don't look for the media to care much about facts for the foreseeable future. It eats into the profits.

[zbdent]

4. if they were truly honest about the health care debate ...

the insurance industry, and the drug industry, would pull their advertisements ...

Of course, they'd lose money (hmm, I wonder if the Washington Times ever turned a profit) ... but then, they actually would be returning to integrity and honest reporting.

Yeah, it's a fantasy ...

So was putting a man on the moon ...

[timtom]

3. Excellent idea.

People who live in darkness, however, will resist all attempts to cast light upon them.

[State the Obvious]

5. It's all about POWER... the media will NOT relinquish its power

....just because the public insists that SOURCES BE PROVIDED.

Years ago, providing sources was a sign of legitimacy. Now, that commitment is practically non-existent. Yes, it is very sad that we have gotten to this point, but we (the public) have been too easily distracted and fooled. By ACCEPTING selected, strategically-manipulated information in Election 2000, we gave the media the power to determine (or slant) the outcome, We unknowingly gave them "the keys to the car".

Can we change it? Yes. But it would require a massive grassroots effort.