Posted on 12/10/2016 6:14:31 AM PST by impetrio1
:: because the media was supposed to be a watchdog of government ::
I’m not quite, fully, on-board with that assessment.
And who decides who is unethical? That’s the problem with limiting unalienable rights.
Seems to me, when one prints lies that direct public opinion against the lawful govrrnment and government processes it is like formenting insurrection or maybe even treason?
Along with the right to free speech comes the responsibility of the reader to research beyond a report. No curtailing of First Amendment rights is healthy. Encouraging people to view many alternative sources of reporting is healthy, as we do here on this forum, reading material from Salon, HuffPo, Buzzfeed and the likes, including the MSM to compliment (all of whom we criticize constantly) FOX, Breitbart, WSJ, National Review, WND and Infowars etc.
The failing ratings of MSNBC, CNN, etc, together with huge subscriber losses at NYTimes and other pulp media is a reflection of the loss of trust from the American public. Ain’t liberty grand?
I think we all need to be careful about the idea of banning or otherwise regulating “fake news”. We are very close to be maneuvered into supporting censorship. We get censorship then bye bye Free Republic as well as talk radio, etc.
All need to retain a healthy skepticism to everything you read, hear or are told. Just because “the story” is “something our enemies would surely do, they are that evil, immoral, etc. “ doesn’t mean they actually did it! Desperately wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true! Many stories fit the “facts” providing you actually know “the facts”, & can reliably source “the facts”. “Facts” change the “story” will change. Also the teller of “facts” & “stories” may have an “agenda”, like your wallet (common!) or the “joy” of manipulating you (sociopathic!). Sitting at your computer and reaching out reaching out into cyberspace and pulling in “information” means you get mostly “noise”, pulling “facts” out of that is much harder the just reading your screen.
Christine Amanpour is so low she’s got the bends.
Unethical Journalists Deserve NO First Amendment Protection
They have been and should be defined as, “The Enemy Within.” We have a news media totally infested with a socialist idealism that colors everything they write or air. Until they are completely outed and understood as the enemy within it will continue.
Alternative media as they define it will eventually destroy them.
agree “no prior restraint” in other words they have freedom of the press and can say what they want, BUT they still are responsible for their actions...right now they have a little too much protection from libel laws...change those not the Constitution...
I’d settle for making them wear signs around their necks when on t.v. stating:
“I am a leftist. I hate the country. I hate conservatives. I will probably lie during the segment you are about to watch. This has been a message from the Media Consumer Protection Agency.”
Libel and slander bars need to be lowered. “Intent,” since it is difficult or impossible to show, should not be considered.
Libel and Slander lawsuits should hang on three things - was information published primarily false; was victim harmed in a measurable fashion (I don’t mean hurt feelings...), and would the perp have a motive for doing such harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.