Canadian Born Patriot dominates senate in 4th longest filibuster ever!

[Dinner]

Who decides who's telling the truth? Only in a bizarro authoritarian police state could banning the press from being dishonest be a good thing.

No, lying is bad as you should have learned in Sunday school as a child. They're not talking about opinions or something which is debatable and instead are talking about things which are either factually correct and provably true or false. If the news group says something which is factually incorrect then they must do an on air retraction to correct the matter and that's entirely reasonable. What they can't do is deliberately lie and say things which are factually untrue and call it news. Canada (and a lot of other countries) want their people to actually be able to trust the news and know that what is said on the news is factually correct. That's a noble goal in my book and that America no longer does this is a major reason why certain political groups in the US have become completely detached from reality and now argue on the basis of fantasies rather than things which are factually true.

[Dinner]

Oerdin talking about lying....precious.

Patty being a waste of space who contributes nothing to this board... Precious.

[kentonio]

Actually reading your comment Kentonio I'm unsure what your arguing for.

Which seems to support that we don't need the government to be involved at all. Then after you say it's easy, you insinuate that most Americans are too stupid to tell, so maybe we do need the government to tell us. You can't have it both ways.

I hate to say I kind of agree with Reg here. The government shouldn't be the one to have to tell whether someone is lying. That role should be done the news industry as a whole. Especially with the internet these days. It's not like the past where you had limited access to check out facts presented.

If you actually take the time to look into a claim it is often pretty easy to tell whether it's truthful or not, especially when its a claim about a piece of legislation or about a set of polling data. Media sources however act as summary device for most people. If a newspaper or TV channel says 'This bill does x' then 99% of people will not then feel they have to go and read the entire 1000+ pages of dense legislation to ensure that what they've heard is true. It would be a totally unreasonable burden to place on people in all fairness.

No-one is suggesting that 'the government' should be the ones to approve all news stories, and its a very American way of looking at it to see it that way. Why you guys can't mentally separate judiciary and government is beyond me. It doesn't even need to be a legal oversight for goodness sake, just have an independent body that is either capable of handing out fines or which acts as a mark of integrity by certifying organizations that sign up to it's oversight. The idea however that it's fine when the media just freely lie their asses off is absolutely astounding to me.

[Jaguar]

Patty being a waste of space who contributes nothing to this board... Precious.

Please stop being unkind.

[rah]

The idea however that it's fine when the media just freely lie their asses off is absolutely astounding to me.

I never said quite that, but can see where you might have seen that. I said

That role should be done the news industry as a whole.

And let's be realistic. Even if a NEWs Agency is "BRANDED" as a lying SOS. There will be people that will want to suck at that teet if the view conforms to their view and will actively search for it.
Ben searches those sites that propagate the lies the Catholic church dishes out labeled as "Beliefs from the bible" despite mass condemnation from less religious people. Other idiots will do the same.
How much should big Government protect people from their own stupidity. While I'm willing to concede some on public safety areas, I don't think news qualifies.

[Patroklos]

Patty being a waste of space who contributes nothing to this board... Precious.

The important points about this post is:

1.) Oerdin doesn't deny being a liar.
2.) the irony of Oerdin talking about others contributing to this site.

[kentonio]

I never said quite that, but can see where you might have seen that. I said

To be fair that was more a response to Reg's raving.

And let's be realistic. Even if a NEWs Agency is "BRANDED" as a lying SOS. There will be people that will want to suck at that teet if the view conforms to their view and will actively search for it.

Ben searches those sites that propagate the lies the Catholic church dishes out labeled as "Beliefs from the bible" despite mass condemnation from less religious people. Other idiots will do the same.

This is what I honestly don't get. Other countries manage to have this kind of system just fine, and yes they still have organizations that don't sign up and spout their nonsense anyway, but there's a very clear and recognized boundary between the respectable news sources and the partisan crazies. What really confuses me is the idea that having the respectable oversight is somehow some hideous assault on free speech. It's only America where this view seems to be popular, and it makes no sense to me.

How much should big Government protect people from their own stupidity. While I'm willing to concede some on public safety areas, I don't think news qualifies.

What exactly is the problem with government setting up an independent body to provide a baseline of quality? Who exactly does it harm, other than the crazies who want to mask their lies and duplicity by pretending that all 'news' is equal and nothing should be subject to examination and fact checking?

[kentonio]

DP

[rah]

I guess to me, I don't need the government to tell me what a tabloid is. I can figure it out for myself especially if other more respectable news services remind me.
Besides FOX news reports many almost lies. These vast stretches of the truth are sometimes not technically lies. Why should any tax payers supported agency have to waste their time pouring through all of them to identify each one. Let non tax supported entities do that. Those that already aren't suspect of FOX news are not going to change their opinion because the government grades them. If anything, that might make some believe it more.
Regardless, there are always going to be those that believe that Elvis is alive or that Aliens have landed. Allocating precious public resources to remind people that they are idiots seems wasteful.

Especially in these times with the internet. Heck more people get their "FACTS" from the internet. Good luck policing that.

I don't think a board would be evil or bad. Just a needless expense.

[kentonio]

Why should any tax payers supported agency have to waste their time pouring through all of them to identify each one.

IIRC ours isn't taxpayer funded, its funded via the news publishers who contribute so they can be regulated by the body, which provides them with the reputation for trustworthiness.

Regardless, there are always going to be those that believe that Elvis is alive or that Aliens have landed. Allocating precious public resources to remind people that they are idiots seems wasteful.

It's not about reminding anyone of anything, it's about providing a neutral body that acts as a safeguard against the excesses of the (supposedly reputable) media.

Especially in these times with the internet. Heck more people get their "FACTS" from the internet. Good luck policing that.

Why would you want to police that? I don't think you're getting my point, it's not about regulating ALL news and information, it's about providing some guarantee that news organizations who want to be considered as trustworthy are actually trustworthy (or else are at least held to account when they aren't). If someone wants to start an internet site or newspaper or whatever and make up anything they want, that is their business.

[kentonio]

DP

[rah]

IIRC ours isn't taxpayer funded, its funded via the news publishers who contribute so they can be regulated by the body, which provides them with the reputation for trustworthiness.

Ok, so it's funded by those that buy the news. A difference but someone is still paying so to me that's a subtle difference only. And to me it sounds like the fox guarding the hen house instead of independent. Not that the government would be totally independent. And yes Americans are suspicious when it comes to self regulating. It hasn't always worked here.

[The Mad Monk]

Wait.

The UK has a Ministry of Truth?

[kentonio]

Ok, so it's funded by those that buy the news. A difference but someone is still paying so to me that's a subtle difference only. And to me it sounds like the fox guarding the hen house instead of independent. Not that the government would be totally independent. And yes Americans are suspicious when it comes to self regulating. It hasn't always worked here.

I understand how it could sound like a fox/hen house scenario, but it's a genuinely independent body from what I understand. Although I did hear something about it being replaced with a new tougher version in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

[kentonio]

Wait.

The UK has a Ministry of Truth?

What?