General Discussion

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts) Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:57 PM Dec 2012

Should it be against the law for news networks to lie? [View all]

96 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	77 (80%)
	No
	16 (17%)
	Undecided
	1 (1%)
	Other
	2 (2%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should it be against the law for news networks to lie? [View all] Jamaal510 Dec 2012 OP

No. It's not always possible to determine an absolute, objective truth. slackmaster Dec 2012 #1

But there should be standards to deal with that. intheflow Dec 2012 #6

I fully agree with you on your "shoulds" but there is a big difference between self-enforced... slackmaster Dec 2012 #12

Consider the following two headlines... brooklynite Dec 2012 #38

That's a great example. Even assurance of objective truth would not eliminate spin and bias. slackmaster Dec 2012 #57

I'm not saying journalism doesn't have a POV. intheflow Dec 2012 #59

The items in your last paragraph are all perfectly acceptable forms of journalism... slackmaster Dec 2012 #77

Which is what I said in my original post that started this sub-thread. n/t intheflow Dec 2012 #121

I think you would be hard-pressed to prove lying in any of these cases... brooklynite Dec 2012 #96

"Being mistaken" is not synonymous with "lying." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #106

Rather often treated that way when it benefits the accuser. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #112

Unequivocal yes. Alternatively, if that conflicts with the 1st amendment, then closeupready Dec 2012 #2

^This^. pacalo Dec 2012 #9

I think there used to be a strongly worded federal statute against lying by the media left on green only Dec 2012 #32

You are completely wrong... brooklynite Dec 2012 #40

Granted. That opened the door to unfair & unbalanced "news", imo. pacalo Dec 2012 #42

Yes, indeed. pacalo Dec 2012 #41

This I Like ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #10

Department of Truth... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #13

Hello? That's why I said, 'open to other views'. closeupready Dec 2012 #17

What I am saying... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #24

That's the pat argument against controls. It's not black or white. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #92

that's what courts do. spanone Dec 2012 #101

And the government never lies? Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #51

What does that have to do with anything? closeupready Dec 2012 #53

sanctioned by the government, your words... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #64

Maybe so. On the other hand, it seems to work closeupready Dec 2012 #73

It works in commercial speech Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #78

That's always the one problem, who is the one with unequivocal truth. Often governments lie RKP5637 Dec 2012 #94

Exactly. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #98

Hey.. my Schticky is awesome... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #116

BBB? Better Business Bureau? Those guys are a bunch of charletans, too! MADem Dec 2012 #81

No, I didn't - thank you for the info. closeupready Dec 2012 #84

*Disinformation Turborama Dec 2012 #126

I don't know about that but limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #3

Exactly! Spike89 Dec 2012 #33

I really think too that breaking up media conglomerates would be a major step in RKP5637 Dec 2012 #95

Yep texshelters Dec 2012 #107

I Do Sympathize With the Idea, Sir.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #4

However, be ready for the backlash you will receive on this. Cleita Dec 2012 #5

canadians don't have our republicans. unblock Dec 2012 #19

So what does that have to do with making the news an honest broker? Cleita Dec 2012 #31

this article is perfect for this thread Enrique Dec 2012 #133

how on earth can opposition to freedom of speech be winning this poll??? unblock Dec 2012 #7

Because enough is enough. Cleita Dec 2012 #11

maybe if we somehow made a law that only canadians could enforce this law it might work. unblock Dec 2012 #23

You are making no sense. Cleita Dec 2012 #36

first, there's simply no way to legislate out propaganda. the best propaganda involves twisting unblock Dec 2012 #48

There is a way. The Canadians have found it. Also, the Brits make a serious and legal Cleita Dec 2012 #65

Well, you know, we kind of tried the liberal media thing. Selatius Dec 2012 #117

well the broad problems are an excess of corporate influence and wealth concentration unblock Dec 2012 #123

This is why you need a law like the Canadian CRTC. Cleita Dec 2012 #156

I think it's because people who can't properly quote George Santayana are doomed to paraphrase him slackmaster Dec 2012 #16

Aren't we the condescender? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #165

Because lying is not freedom of speech nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #20

Lying most certainly is protected under the first amendment.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #60

The corrupt SCOTUS who gave us Bush. Whoopie. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #167

Actually it was the FL Supreme Court Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #180

fraud is something else entirely. unblock Dec 2012 #62

I will give you a more more or less back and white example nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74

i agree that not all speech, even truthful speech, is entirely protected. unblock Dec 2012 #76

And that is what I am talking about nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #83

but i don't think any change in law is required for this. unblock Dec 2012 #86

That court's decision protected all fibs nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #148

iirc, that "fib" didn't fall under the incitement to riot or libel or other restrictions. unblock Dec 2012 #151

Read the decision nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #152

You bring to mind the question texshelters Dec 2012 #111

In my mind yes. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #147

You must consider the source.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #80

Yes, and we all know who their medium for this was nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #85

I remember a more responsible press.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #88

Yup, what we need is the liberal application nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #150

Where is the Lying Exception in the 1A? nt Codeine Dec 2012 #114

There are restrictions in regards to lying in advertising... Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #52

lying in advertising induces overvaluation of a product in an effort to pry away money. unblock Dec 2012 #67

Absolutely agree with you.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #54

People generally dislike civil rights when people they don't like benefit from them. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #105

So a "news" station reporting that, say, Iranians killed John Lennon, would just be "free speech"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #164

You damn right it should be madokie Dec 2012 #8

No. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #14

I don't for one second think the Framers.. 99Forever Dec 2012 #15

Only if we first make it illegal for politicians to lie. Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #18

Brilliant thought!! n/t Inkfreak Dec 2012 #22

I had a riff on that... immoderate Dec 2012 #30

Nope Inkfreak Dec 2012 #21

Damn Skippy. riqster Dec 2012 #25

Truth in labeling. tosh Dec 2012 #26

It is in Canada. n/t arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #27

Please Google "propaganda in canada" slackmaster Dec 2012 #139

I think they should be able to lie, but not when they're calling themselves "News" gollygee Dec 2012 #28

Concur - News is reporting and subject to a higher standing. laserhaas Dec 2012 #89

Concur - nt laserhaas Dec 2012 #90

If it's a statement of known fact. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #29

And double penalties for lying Political Ads. Matariki Dec 2012 #34

"Congress Shall Make No Law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" brooklynite Dec 2012 #35

I'm amazed at how many DU'ers in this poll are ready to throw that out the window. TeamPooka Dec 2012 #179

yes. that is why fox news can't get into Canada. Whisp Dec 2012 #37

*sigh* laundry_queen Dec 2012 #119

We could hook them up to polygraphs LeftInTX Dec 2012 #39

Ha ha texshelters Dec 2012 #113

Who determines what is a news organizations? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43

Dictionary.com is your friend. 99Forever Dec 2012 #44

The Onion - America's Finest News Source AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45

You don't quite get the .. 99Forever Dec 2012 #46

I certainly do AlexSatan Dec 2012 #49

Me. of course. 99Forever Dec 2012 #58

The law. Cleita Dec 2012 #61

Who defines what "seriously" is? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #71

Not me. Standards of journalism have been in place for hundreds of Cleita Dec 2012 #72

Loopholes are too easy AlexSatan Dec 2012 #79

So according to you, we should sit back and do nothing because Cleita Dec 2012 #91

Yes, the gov't should sit back and do nothing AlexSatan Dec 2012 #127

I watch Stewart because he's smart and funny. Cleita Dec 2012 #128

I agree, he is smart and funny AlexSatan Dec 2012 #136

Everything was run by the Soviet Union because they practiced Cleita Dec 2012 #155

The Chinese government has it all figured out. slackmaster Dec 2012 #141

If you think Stewart and Colbert are news organizations, I have a bridge.... Cleita Dec 2012 #47

I don't. AlexSatan Dec 2012 #50

They are in a perverse sort of way because our news organizations are falling Cleita Dec 2012 #56

What is an "organization"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #108

Already is zipplewrath Dec 2012 #55

Perhaps... 99Forever Dec 2012 #63

Sorry, Fla Supreme Court already decided the issue tech3149 Dec 2012 #66

Wow...I never knew about that case.. Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #171

Where is the separating line between a "gross exaggeration" and a "lie"? PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #68

WHAT ABOUT THE FOX PROPAGANDA NETWORK? HowHasItComeToThis Dec 2012 #69

As long as they call themselves entertainment and fake news for Republicans Cleita Dec 2012 #70

They have the same First Amendment rights the Hearst propaganda network, the Chandler propaganda... slackmaster Dec 2012 #75

If the news programming, advertised as such, is leasing airwaves from the us... LanternWaste Dec 2012 #82

No - first amendment. Initech Dec 2012 #87

Who gets to decide what's true? JVS Dec 2012 #93

Yep, that's always the down side to all of this, who is the holder of RKP5637 Dec 2012 #97

No. It conflicts with the 1st amendment. eallen Dec 2012 #99

yes. it's a great responsibility they bare. they should be held to the highest standard. spanone Dec 2012 #100

I want truth in advertising Warpy Dec 2012 #102

The real solution is texshelters Dec 2012 #103

143 crackpots and rising cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #104

Work for FOX, do you? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #109

You misspelled "Read the First Amendment" (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #110

You misspelled "State Propaganda." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #157

No, that's what you're advocating. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #181

Indeed. nt Codeine Dec 2012 #115

It seems many of the great Dystopian writers of the Cold War era were right slackmaster Dec 2012 #138

or 143 not so swift folks. cali Dec 2012 #172

Canada vrguy Dec 2012 #118

WOW. 87% of DUers want Dan Rather to go to prison Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #120

No they don't and we know that Dan Rather was railroaded. Cleita Dec 2012 #122

Bwah! Rather had the goods on Dubya! WinkyDink Dec 2012 #158

Lying propaganda outlets should not be allowed to call themselves "news". backscatter712 Dec 2012 #124

Should DU be allowed to have a subforum called "Late Breaking News"? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #134

Message boards aren't subsidized by tax-payers over the air-waves. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #159

OK, so you're only talking about old-style over-the-air TV. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #173

Free over-the-air broadcasts are riding the people's airwaves and can be lawfully regulated. Cable TransitJohn Dec 2012 #125

Criminal Anti-Defamation Laws have been a useful tool for censorship and opression ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #129

Should the liberal media be prosecuted for spreading all their left-wing anti-American lies? Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #130

Sarah Palin agrees ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #131

As my 8th grade US History teacher explained, the far left and the far right are indistingushable... slackmaster Dec 2012 #137

Define "News Network" Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #132

Good lord no. JoeyT Dec 2012 #135

I'm fascinated and pleased that not one person has voted Undecided in the poll yet slackmaster Dec 2012 #140

Only about things that are not subjective... Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #142

So if a scientist came out with evidence against it... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #149

You know, I've Just had a Newsroom HBO Marathon Xyzse Dec 2012 #143

There is no way to police that treestar Dec 2012 #144

85% of DUers hold a frightening and totally fucked up position. Jeezus. cali Dec 2012 #145

I have, over the last year, been forced to re-examine my views of the internet left cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #146

sadly true. cali Dec 2012 #168

unfortunately, as this poll proves -at best DU is only marginally more gifted with critical thinking Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #177

Tonkin Gulf? Was that "an opinion"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #160

please, please grab a clue. cali Dec 2012 #169

Bush's cousin who works for FOX. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #175

Can you imagine all the super pacs Rove & Kochs would fund trying to bring down msnbc? jillan Dec 2012 #153

You mean, other than the efforts they are making as we speak? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #161

Other: You should be able to take them to court for things objectively false n/t rock Dec 2012 #154

You can already do that, but you have to prove a few things in order to win in court... slackmaster Dec 2012 #162

YES. Perhaps this could be called "slander" (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #174

Defamation law already applies to the news. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #182

As long as I can get a job at The Ministry of Truth Throd Dec 2012 #163

NO. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #166

“And yet,to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.” guardian Dec 2012 #170

"In Pravda there is no news, in Izvestia there is no truth." Used to be a joke. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #176

Actually, having government act as the arbiter of truth and of newsworthiness is exactly... slackmaster Dec 2012 #178

ridiculous, who decides what's a lie? you? crazyjoe Dec 2012 #183

Hmm would Ed Shultz and Hannity Riftaxe Dec 2012 #184

"Yes" voters - If George Zimmerman wins his lawsuit against MSNBC for their selective editing... slackmaster Dec 2012 #185

Oops, looks like I killed it. slackmaster Dec 2012 #186