Should media be held accountable for spreading false information?

[Smith_3]

I wonder about this, not only since the recent case of the possibly not true "pregnancy pact". This is a minor issue, but in severe cases the spread of false information by media can ruin people's lives or start wars.

My question is: what are the pros and cons of having a tight standard of "truth" enforced upon media, as to where they can receive heavy fines for spreading provably wrong information. Basically, in order to spread information, media would have to present reasonable evidence to make it plausible that what they are saying is correct.

We have a 1st amendment. But does it cover cases were the media deliberately spread lies to smear an individual?

I know in some countries there are "truth laws" that forbid media to spread false facts. But does this not invite misuse by the ones in power as well?

For those who wants to post "who decides what is true?", true is what is in accordance with factual objective reality.

[TooBigaTent]

1. Yes, obviously. They SHOULD be. But they will not be held accountable for their lies.

Neither the ones they pushed in the past nor the ones they will run and re-run constantly until November.

Their owners control them and they do not bite the hand that feeds them.

Only by making individual media mouthpieces responsible for their lies and bringing direct, substantial consequences down on them will they ever stop lying for thie paychecks.

But Americans are not brave enough to take the needed action.

[ryanmuegge]

2. The corporate media will always be the same, no matter what anybody does.

They're conglomerates. These companies have other sectors that make money. Regardless of how much they are fined and how much money they lose from their media operations, they will keep them in business and function exactly the same just to get their message out and further their political agenda. Media conglomerates are not in media to make money; rather, they exist to influence the public and narrow political debate to advance the political and economic agendas of their corporate owners and the investor class. These companies (like GE) will hold onto their national media outlets and brands NO MATTER WHAT, even if it means killing local stations and newspapers.

[stillcool]

5. why can't laws..

be written that prevent, and bust up the consolidation of news outlets? Not that it would ever happen, but it's nice to dream..

[ryanmuegge]

6. Right. Diverse ownership is the only thing that will change the way the media.

[tom_paine]

11. Exactly.

[onenote]

9. apart from GE/NBC, which of the major media companies are "conglomerates"

The major media entities -- CBS, News Corp, Disney, Time Warner -- are more heavily invested in media outlets and in content creation for those media outlets than in any other area (even for Disney, the theme parks are the tail, not the dog).

[ryanmuegge]

14. While not congolmerates in the traditional sense, they are very much vertically integrated.

They are also horizontally integrated. Outside of the news operations, as you mention, they have other profitable media brands and holdings (popular TV shows and film studios). Disney has ABC and ESPN, for example.

These pure media companies are massive, as I'm sure you know. Their news networks have a painfully obvious agenda to anybody who watches with a semi-critical eye.

[onenote]

16. they are vertically integrated, which is why they don't want the distribution side to be killed off

The bread and butter for the big media companies (again, setting aside GE) is in content for some (Time Warner, which is spinning off its cable systems and will primarily a content company) or CBS (which is primarily a distribution company, having been spun off from Viacom, the content side). Disney and News Corp have both (although News Corp has now spun off DirecTV).

These companies need the distribution side to survive either because its the business that they primarily are in or because they need distribution for their content. Moreover, several of these companies are heavily invested in local broadcasting and both News Corp and Time Warner are heavily invested in publishing, so they hardly want those outlets to be killed off.

[KharmaTrain]

3. It's How The "News" Is Presented

The concept of "News" on the teevee is now one of ratings and revenues...if it bleeds it leads. The object is to titlate or agrivate...get people watching...turning each "newscast" into a Roman Circus of videos and soundbites. The best "news" is the stuff that can be manipulated...stories such as this local one that has one of those titilation factors...teenage sex...that is sure to draw a lot more attention than spending time discussing oil stock speculation or another booosh regime scandal.

There's no "truth" standard here as in these types of stories none has been determined...but the corporate media will play the moral "authority" as there is no one who really can challenge them. All that matters is titilation...as many sins and taboos you can hit on the better. The people in these morality plays are mere props in the Roman circus...their lives mean little as opposed to the ratings gold that can be mined out of these stories.

This is what you get when you have a centralized media...one that has little local input or control. It's a product of deregulation and the "news" divisions being put under the same requirements as other "revenue producers".

[wurzel]

4. Who guards the guards?

[onenote]

17. exactly. Which is why I'll go with the Supreme Court's 1974 determination:

"A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated." Miami Herald Pub. Co. v Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974)

[timtom]

7. Absolutely!!!

Otherwise they should make it very clear that they are solely in the entertainment business and NEVER pass themselves off as journalists.

[L0oniX]

8. Word up ...Dan Rather. n/t

[tom_paine]

10. Most definitely. But it would be difficult to prove such things by legal definition

(I am no lawyer, so if any are looking at this, please correct me if I am wrong)

so that punishments could be meted out.

It's easy to say,

For those who wants to post "who decides what is true?", true is what is in accordance with factual objective reality.

but in the practical world of law and trials, etc., what does that mean. It's like a non sequitur.

I agree with you that the media should be punished for their complicity with Bushie Tyranny, the same way some of the German media were prosecuted for complicity with Nazi Tyranny at Nuremberg.

But even then, only a relative few were prosecuted.

There may even be a few German Tim Russerts still alive today as doderring old men, unprosecuted at Nuremberg because they were viewed as Tim Russert was...as at worst unwitting pawns and at best anti nazi/Bushie Liberals.

Think about it, even in Nazi Germany, the Tim Russerts walked away from Nuremberg, weren't even tried there.

In practice, such prosecutions are difficult and I could only see them as being like Nuremberg, as adjunct to International War Crimes Trials.

And even then, most of the gulity, most of the Tim Russerts if not all of them, won't even be tried.

In conclusion: Nice idea in theory. Impossible in practice, except as tangent to International War Crimes Trials. And even then, most of the guilty aren't even tried.

Good post, thought-provoking and stimulating. Even though I mostly disagree because you are speaking of therotical things that are impossible in practical life.

If you want the kind of blanket media trials such as you suggest, it would have to be a French Revolution jacobin-style thing.

Yecch! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, to use an old but true cliche.

[datasuspect]

12. yes to that and yes for supressing information

[mmonk]

13. If they were, they would be out of business.

[Winterblues]

15. Fox News was taken to court over this very issue and the courts ruled

They could indeed LIE all they want and could not be held accountable..

[Supersedeas]

18. Fox is the prototype that all other Media outlets cling to: lie if its entertaining and call the

the lie a representation of both sides of the story...even if one side is the truth (not reported) and the other side is sensationalism. Fair and Balanced...only the balance requires that someone do some homework on the opposite side of the sensationalism -- here the Television media relies on other outlets to fill in the missing pieces.

[KansDem]

19. Media corporations are "people" according to the SCOTUS...

If I, as "people," can be held accountable for misrepresenting myself, then I would think media corporations could as well.

[Oeditpus Rex]

20. Held accountable by whom?

Fined how much? Who would set and enforce such laws and penalties? :shrug: