• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Free Press/Fake Press

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
33,846
Reaction score
63,528
Points
148
The whole concept of media influence in politics, concerns about censorship v concerns about fake news, probably is big enough that it deserves its own thread. So I thought I'd start one, which can include discussion of specific fake news articles, proposals to control/limit fake news, media bias....the whole thing.

Just to start things off, I thought I'd lead with a flaming commentary on an article run by the WaPo regarding fake news. The article was by noted lefty Glenn Greenwald, who blasted a WaPo "fake news" feature for endorsing stronger policing of "fake news" sites, and did so by relying on a website called "propaganda or not", whose management/membership is completely anonymous. Greenwald's article is worth a read:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26...klist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

Now, what makes this is interesting is that the GOP-controlled House just passed a bill targeted at, among other things, countering Russian "media manipulation". And of course, that bill was heavily critiqued by ZeroHedge, which was one of the websites accused of being fake news.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...es-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites

I really have no idea what to make of any of that, but it's interesting as hell.
 
All I know is that the government has no rightful role in this. If people don't like what alternative sites are reporting, it should be easy enough to discredit them like it was easy enough to discredit reports of WMDs in Iraq, housing as a safe investment, Iran a year away from a nuclear weapon, Benghazi happened because of a Youtube video, Hillary can't lose the election, etc.
 
All I know is that the government has no rightful role in this. If people don't like what alternative sites are reporting, it should be easy enough to discredit them like it was easy enough to discredit reports of WMDs in Iraq, housing as a safe investment, Iran a year away from a nuclear weapon, Benghazi happened because of a Youtube video, Hillary can't lose the election, etc.

Do you then believe the sites promoting completely fabricated stories should be dealt with through the court system?
 
Do you then believe the sites promoting completely fabricated stories should be dealt with through the court system?

If they are breaking libel or slander laws, sure. Of course there would have to be proof that the stories are completely fabricated.
 
Do you then believe the sites promoting completely fabricated stories should be dealt with through the court system?

Well, if they've committed a recognized tort, like fraud, or libel, sure. But I'm kind of concerned about it otherwise because I see it running square into the First Amendment. First, even the best news organizations can get tricked into publishing a completely fabricated story, so what's an objective standard, that is clear ahead of time and cannot be abused, for when publishing a fabricated story will result in punishment of the media entity that is disseminating it? Does The Drudge Report get nailed for publicizing a fabricated story, but the NYT get a pass?

And while some stories may be universally acknowledged as completely fabricated, what about the almost infinite shades of that, where some will contend it is completely false, but others dispute that? Either because the facts are disputed, or because it involves hyperbole, or conclusions/opinions drawn from facts?
 
Do you then believe the sites promoting completely fabricated stories should be dealt with through the court system?

This is really the root question to get to any form of solution.

On one hand, you feel like this should be libel. Creating a false story inherently shows bias, right? If that false story leads to defamation, biased defamation should be grounds for libel, right?

On the other hand, you worry that this becomes another way for governments to protect themselves. It forces journalistic outlets to have real, concrete proof to back up every single thing that gets printed. Everyone knows that sources generally want their names out of stories as much as possible. In a world where fake news is a crime, real news stories with unnamed sources can't really exist. That allows government officials and/or people in true power to shut down any media that they don't like if said media can't provide indisputable evidence.

I don't know, man.
 
On the other hand, you worry that this becomes another way for governments to protect themselves. It forces journalistic outlets to have real, concrete proof to back up every single thing that gets printed.

That's true only if whatever authority is administering this doesn't like what's being said. If they do, then they may just leave it alone.

There's just so much subjectivity possible with this stuff that I think it's dangerous to give anyone that kind of legal power. The only "solution" I can see working is trying to push that voters must educated themselves and use their own good judgment. That's basically the premise on which our entire form of government is based, so I don't think it's asking/expecting too much.
 
There is an authority that has already spoken on the matter, though it really isn't worth a fuck anymore.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
There is an authority that has already spoken on the matter, though it really isn't worth a fuck anymore.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's why the law continues to change and transform through time, though:

In 1791, that law applied to U.S. citizens writing on a printing press. What is happening these days only slightly resembles 1791.

In the case of the fraudulent attacks on Presidential nominees the past calendar year, we have writers who are not U.S. citizens, and have in many cases never been to the U.S. slandering prominent U.S. Politicians for personal gain. In 1791, that would have been grounds for war.

In the case of U.S. citizens slandering U.S. politicians or people running for office, it's of course protected from libel. However, we are now in a global world for journalism. In 1791, making up false accusations of politicians and giving them to another country as fact would have been treasonous.

In the case of private citizens being fraudulently slandered without any basis in fact, that would be grounds for libel and slander. Of course, anonymous journalism makes it difficult to check if the origin of the slander is from a U.S. citizen protected by libel law.

So in summation, it's the wild west as far as the law goes until the laws are modernized. I'm all for protection of free speech, but there's reason laws get modernized from the days of the Bill of Rights.
 
Here's why the law continues to change and transform through time, though:

In 1791, that law applied to U.S. citizens writing on a printing press. What is happening these days only slightly resembles 1791.

In the case of the fraudulent attacks on Presidential nominees the past calendar year, we have writers who are not U.S. citizens, and have in many cases never been to the U.S. slandering prominent U.S. Politicians for personal gain. In 1791, that would have been grounds for war.

In the case of U.S. citizens slandering U.S. politicians or people running for office, it's of course protected from libel. However, we are now in a global world for journalism. In 1791, making up false accusations of politicians and giving them to another country as fact would have been treasonous.

In the case of private citizens being fraudulently slandered without any basis in fact, that would be grounds for libel and slander. Of course, anonymous journalism makes it difficult to check if the origin of the slander is from a U.S. citizen protected by libel law.

So in summation, it's the wild west as far as the law goes until the laws are modernized. I'm all for protection of free speech, but there's reason laws get modernized from the days of the Bill of Rights.

What they published news on back then is irrelevant to anything, and the rest of that sounds like your problem is finding who and where the "fake news" peddlers are. Abridging the freedom of the press doesn't solve that, but it does violate the entire reason that line was included in the first amendment.

The language is pretty clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But that never stopped anyone from shitting on the old piece of paper before, so have at it.
 
What they published news on back then is irrelevant to anything, and the rest of that sounds like your problem is finding who and where the "fake news" peddlers are. Abridging the freedom of the press doesn't solve that, but it does violate the entire reason that line was included in the first amendment.

The language is pretty clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But that never stopped anyone from shitting on the old piece of paper before, so have at it.

What? Application of the law when the Bill of Rights were written is irrelevant to modern upkeep of law? Why do we have a Supreme Court? Why do we have a Legislative Branch?

Where do I have any confusion on understanding which news is "Fake" when I was the one who pointed it out in the Pizzagate thread? Seems like I was one of the few who can differentiate.

Why make it so personal?

Asinine accusations here. I'm not "shitting on" original documents of the nation when I point out over 200 years of legislation that followed.
 
What? Application of the law when the Bill of Rights were written is irrelevant to modern upkeep of law? Why do we have a Supreme Court? Why do we have a Legislative Branch?

Where do I have any confusion on understanding which news is "Fake" when I was the one who pointed it out in the Pizzagate thread? Seems like I was one of the few who can differentiate.

Why make it so personal?

Asinine accusations here. I'm not "shitting on" original documents of the nation when I point out over 200 years of legislation that followed.

When I said "your", I didn't mean you singularly, but anyone who would want the government to step in on this.

You mentioned the difficulty of finding the origin of the anonymous journalism that violates libel/slander laws. So there are already laws in place to handle this, the difficulty is finding who to prosecute.

And yes, application of this law when the Bill of Rights was written is irrelevant to modern upkeep of law. The language leaves no room for interpretation, and the reason for it's inclusion is well understood. It would be a travesty for the federal government to claim the authority to determine truthful media content. This isn't the Soviet Union.
 
When I said "your", I didn't mean you singularly, but anyone who would want the government to step in on this.

Okay, just be aware of pronouns when you write a fire and brimstone post. You (personally) aren't going to have a healthy dialogue otherwise.

You mentioned the difficulty of finding the origin of the anonymous journalism that violates libel/slander laws. So there are already laws in place to handle this, the difficulty is finding who to prosecute.

We agree, and that goes back to my comment on "Wild West" of the internet. If people are regularly violating the law about slander, defamation of character, and libel, enforcement of law needs to remain 21st century. We (personally) agree here.

And yes, application of this law when the Bill of Rights was written is irrelevant to modern upkeep of law. The language leaves no room for interpretation, and the reason for it's inclusion is well understood. It would be a travesty for the federal government to claim the authority to determine truthful media content. This isn't the Soviet Union.

Here we don't 100% agree because again, you are comparing the Soviet Union stuffing free speech in the 1970s with what is going on specifically with modern spamming on the internet for profit, oftentimes the origin of that spam coming from outside of the United States. I'm all for free speech, but there are aspects of this revenue source for individuals outside of the country that isn't treating this as actual media, but instead a money scam.
 
What they published news on back then is irrelevant to anything, and the rest of that sounds like your problem is finding who and where the "fake news" peddlers are. Abridging the freedom of the press doesn't solve that, but it does violate the entire reason that line was included in the first amendment.

The language is pretty clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But that never stopped anyone from shitting on the old piece of paper before, so have at it.

Even if we're not talking about freedom of the press, there's still freedom of speech that you'd be suppressing. And as a practical matter, those two are beginning to merge anyway because the internet makes possible instant dissemination of private writings, and blurs the line between "the press" and everyone else. Which I personally think is a good thing anyway.

Things are almost better than they used to be because in the old days, there were far fewer media sources, so they all carried much more influence than they do now. Newspapers could make or break politicians with either the truth or lies, which meant that a single publisher could make or break politicians. I don't see that as superior to what we have now, so I don't see how changes since then justifier greater controls on the press, or limitations on speech. The diversification of the media and the internet makes cross-checking much easier than it ever used to be for the average citizen.

Free press/free speech have never been perfect, and they're not now. I think they're just better than the alternative.
 
Here we don't 100% agree because again, you are comparing the Soviet Union stuffing free speech in the 1970s with what is going on specifically with modern spamming on the internet for profit, oftentimes the origin of that spam coming from outside of the United States. I'm all for free speech, but there are aspects of this revenue source for individuals outside of the country that isn't treating this as actual media, but instead a money scam.

I wasn't even talking about free speech, though that could apply too for "fake news" that isn't libelous or slanderous. I was talking about a free press. I was comparing a U.S. government that would require it's own stamp of "truth" before a story could be run to the Soviet Union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top