I don't disagree with your general stance, but I would hope there is a better way. As a general thought, I think there should be 'strict' labeling of what is presented in the media as 1. Corroborated news without opinion, 2. Uncorroborated news without opinion, 3. Opinion 4. Editorials (possibly more categories). Any improper labeling will make the media outlet susceptible to fines and eventually pulling their credentials.
Another possibility would be to make media outlets much more liable and vulnerable to private lawsuits for inaccuracies and defamation.
No solution is going to be perfect, but I prefer solutions in which private citizens get to decide, rather than the government.
...
No solution is going to be perfect, but I prefer solutions in which private citizens get to decide, rather than the government.
Any way you look at it, there MUST be a fundamental change in the media's "heads I win, tails you lose" Constitutional status.
They are so fond of pointing out the Founders never envisioned the types of weapons we have today when they wrote the Second Amendment. Well, the Founders never envisioned a "Press Cartel" that can literally gaslight vast swaths of private citizens who aren't consumed with documenting the objective validity of what they are told by the modern Press, either.
Please note the kind of solutions you "hope for" are even more punitive and/or restrictive than what's being proposed, and would further require a new authority be given to some as of yet unnamed third party arbiter...so what's the difference?
And it's not like most private citizens have the training in critical thinking and documentary analysis to "catch" what the media does when it "spins" the news, so how are THEY supposed to make those determinations?