...
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?
Again, I understand and don't disagree with your points, but there are caveats to everything. Actually, it has been largely private citizens, including quite a few FReepers who have held the media's feet to the fire, time and time again. To be honest, I don't think there are that many 'critical thinkers' in government, so not sure how any approach that relies on the knowledge (let alone integrity) of government is going to work. Critical thinking, or for that matter reasonable thinking, are not prerequisites to success achieving public office. For the most part, being a self-centered willing to say anything narcissist appears to be a sufficient talent set. Your point about the founders not anticipating the power of modern media and communications is very true and insightful, and if they had maybe we would have had four branches of government, including one that addressed propaganda.