Preventing the spread of Fake News and Misinformation

[frigidweirdo]

I'm saying the news, you know the one with the title .XXX NEWS, changes it's policy, no round table discussions, no interpretation of the news, and when presenting a clip of a politician, government offical, business man, or other celebrity no rebuttal or presentation of material to contradict him or her. In others words the news outlet amends it's policy to present just the news in it's news broadcast as unbiased and as balanced as possible.

The news commentary shows like Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, etc. remain unchanged with only a policy statement before each show that the following is a news commentary and all statements made represent the opinion of the host, not necessarily the station nor management.

It is not the job of the news room to determine fact or fiction but just to present the news. It's the job of a news commentator and the viewer to weight the question of fact or fiction. One might argue that it is wrong for a newscaster to present what is obviously lies and misinformation. The newscaster has one of two opinion, present it and leave it to the news commentators to tear it apart or simply don't ignore it. News outlets are free to choose what they call news and what should be presented. Remember the New York Times credo, "All the news that is fit to print." Many of our greatest journalists and editors have followed that advice and it is served them well.

The question is whether this would have an impact? Would people just stop watching news, Fox just becomes "Fox" and peddles crap that people watch anyway. Doesn't change a thing.

 

[Flopper]

It won't matter. You could tell people that Fox News isn't news, and they'd still watch it and still accept it.

It's impossible to get out of "biased news", choosing which news story is number one of the day is inherently biased. And you can't have them all at the same time, all in number one position.

Yes, for democracy to work there needs to be something. The problem is that for democracy to work people need to be able to say things that aren't from the government line. Things that maybe can't be proven. Things that might be considered "fake news" when in reality they could be real.

What's wrong with Fox News is the same thing that is wrong with most major news outlets. There is little or no attempt to create an unbiased newscast because that is not the goal of the newsroom any more. No newscast can be completely unbiased. The problem is in the mist of all the polarization, nobody is really trying. Probably because the public just wants some charismatic showman twisting the news around so it fits what they already believe.

This started nearly nearly 60 years when the president of NBC , David Sarnoff decided the news division had bring in the money and screw all all this public service bullshit. The FCC no longer required so why do it. CBS and ABC jumped on board. Ted Turner in 1980 with CNN showed them how to do it and Fox New 20 years later saw a new market in appealing to conservatives. A few years later MSNBC came on the scene to claim the liberal market. All the other major networks jumped on bandwagon. What was a pubic service in 1960 is now a 11 billion dollar business.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's wrong with Fox News is the same thing that is wrong with most major news outlets. There is little or no attempt to create an unbiased newscast because that is not the goal of the newsroom any more. No newscast can be completely unbiased. The problem is in the mist of all the polarization, nobody is really trying. Probably because the public just wants some charismatic showman twisting the news around so it fits what they already believe.

This started nearly nearly 60 years when the president of NBC , David Sarnoff decided the news division had bring in the money and screw all all this public service bullshit. The FCC no longer required so why do it. CBS and ABC jumped on board. Ted Turner in 1980 with CNN showed them how to do it and Fox New 20 years later saw a new market in appealing to conservatives. A few years later MSNBC came on the scene to claim the liberal market. All the other major networks jumped on bandwagon. What was a pubic service in 1960 is now a 11 billion dollar business.

I get that.

The problem here is that your solution doesn't change anything. It merely changes the image, but not the substance.

Neither of us is saying Fox is good. But you're saying if you change Fox News to "Fox" that somehow the manipulation of people is going to stop. It's not.

 

[j-mac]

That is difficult say. The range or liberalism or connectivism run from fire breathing maniacs to centralists that lean left or right. TV networks all lean left with the exception of Fox News. Talk Radio is mostly conservative. On Internet website it would hard to say. There are hundreds of thousands of websites that present either news and/or news commentary.

Social media needs some oversight, but by who, I don't know. It should be whoever is responsible for the website. There could be some federal legislation that puts whoever is responsible for the website, jointly responsibly for liable and slander from their site. We need to be cognizant of the need for freedom of speech but also need to be cognizant of the need for compensation for those who have had that lives and business destroy by lies, misinformation, spread on social media.

When you figure out that big tech and Democrats are working together to infringe on speech, let me know.

 

[AntonToo]

You mean like the LIE that HCQ, Zinc and Ivermectin aren't an effective treatment in the early stage. .

Dummy, it's waste of time horseshit compared to potently effective monoclonal antibody treatment.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19

The FDA issued an EUA for two monoclonal antibodies to be administered together for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients.

www.fda.gov

When Trump himself got sick he didn't take "HCQ, Zinc and Ivermectin" garbage him and his circle push to dupes like you, they gave him the good stuff.

De Santis is a dumbass on prevention and one of the original HCQ tards, yet forward a year and suddenly he is scrambling to open monoclonal antibody treatment centers all over Florida.

Hmm, why would De Santis do that if all those rightwing Covid cures work so well.

Over 65,000 patients treated at Florida's monoclonal antibody sites

The state of Florida and Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a lofty push this month to increase access to monoclonal antibody treatments for people battling COVID-19.

www.wtxl.com

 

[OKTexas]

Dummy, it's waste of time horseshit compared to potently effective monoclonal antibody treatment.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19

The FDA issued an EUA for two monoclonal antibodies to be administered together for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients.

www.fda.gov

When Trump himself got sick he didn't take "HCQ, Zinc and Ivermectin" garbage him and his circle push to dupes like you, they gave him the good stuff.

De Santis is a dumbass on prevention and one of the original HCQ tards, yet forward a year and suddenly he is scrambling to open monoclonal antibody treatment centers all over Florida.

Hmm, why would De Santis do that if all those rightwing Covid cures work so well.

Over 65,000 patients treated at Florida's monoclonal antibody sites

The state of Florida and Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a lofty push this month to increase access to monoclonal antibody treatments for people battling COVID-19.

www.wtxl.com

Dumb ass, the Regeneron treatment wasn't widely available a year ago. Also it's not made available to everyone that might want it and it's much more expensive than alternatives and is only slightly more effective. So keep pushing the commie party line, even though you really don't know what you're talking about.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I get that.
The problem here is that your solution doesn't change anything. It merely changes the image, but not the substance.
Neither of us is saying Fox is good. But you're saying if you change Fox News to "Fox" that somehow the manipulation of people is going to stop. It's not.

I still wonder if it's possible to have the same kind of non-government, journalism industry-self-regulating mechanism that the financial service industry has with FINRA. I haven't fleshed this out, but it might include standards and designations that are maintained and enforced.

So for example, let's say we call it a "Certified News Resource" (CNR). All the goober sites remain and keep shoveling their shit, but those organizations with the CNR designation pay dues, are held to standards via enforceable rules, and can lose their designation if they screw up. That's how the CFP designation works for financial advisors.

So over time (and I'd imagine it wouldn't take too much time), CNR outlets would set themselves apart in the eyes of the public in terms of credibility and quality.

 

[candycorn]

I understand what you're saying and agreed with it most of my life.

I want to agree with it now but the lies are getting people killed. It's keeping a virus alive to mutate into new and more lethal variants. It's causing people to ingest chemicals that harm and in some cases, kill them.

I think there should be a limit to the ability of people to be able to lie through their teeth.

We have like 10 moderators on this board....other mods (past mods mainly) have called this place a "cesspool". They do nothing to clean it up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I still wonder if it's possible to have the same kind of non-government, journalism industry-self-regulating mechanism that the financial service industry has with FINRA. I haven't fleshed this out, but it might include standards and designations that are maintained and enforced.

So for example, let's say we call it a "Certified News Resource" (CNR). All the goober sites remain and keep shoveling their shit, but those organizations with the CNR designation pay dues, are held to standards via enforceable rules, and can lose their designation if they screw up. That's how the CFP designation works for financial advisors.

So over time (and I'd imagine it wouldn't take too much time), CNR outlets would set themselves apart in the eyes of the public in terms of credibility and quality.

The problem here is that it might be in too many people's interests for this to happen. They need to manipulate people, and that's hardly many people calling for the media to be decent.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem here is that it might be in too many people's interests for this to happen. They need to manipulate people, and that's hardly many people calling for the media to be decent.

I think that's definitely a danger, but I look at where we are now -- competing realities -- and I think it would be an improvement. Lots of details would need to be worked out, for sure.

 

[candycorn]

It’s also important to understand that for conservatives, fake news, misinformation, and lies are part of the Republican political campaign to sow chaos and discord, undermine confidence in the political process, and foment Republican minority rule.

Indeed, conservatives thrive in an environment of chaos and confusion, as their lies and conspiracy theories are intended to facilitate mistrust in democracy, where citizens eventually abandon voting and political participation altogether – to the perceived partisan advantage of Republicans.

Fake news is indeed bad for democracy – just as intended by conservatives.

It will be interesting to see where the GOP is 10 years from now. If they don't get control of their party away from the cartoonish figures; it may be a future that finally includes a viable third party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think that's definitely a danger, but I look at where we are now -- competing realities -- and I think it would be an improvement. Lots of details would need to be worked out, for sure.

Yes, it's a very complicated thing. But like I said I think you need to start with kids. Adults are too far gone and the only way to deal with them is to ban them from things, like China does.

Many kids in the US are brought up on religion, ie, learning to believe over facts.

Schools should be teaching kids the skills they need. The problem is there's a big thing from the extremes to control the narrative and adults with those skills are harder to manipulate.

But like it always happens, I'm back at Proportional Representation. Until people get the representation they want, then politics will be about manipulation on a huge scale, and nothing will change.

 

[candycorn]

I still wonder if it's possible to have the same kind of non-government, journalism industry-self-regulating mechanism that the financial service industry has with FINRA. I haven't fleshed this out, but it might include standards and designations that are maintained and enforced.

So for example, let's say we call it a "Certified News Resource" (CNR). All the goober sites remain and keep shoveling their shit, but those organizations with the CNR designation pay dues, are held to standards via enforceable rules, and can lose their designation if they screw up. That's how the CFP designation works for financial advisors.

So over time (and I'd imagine it wouldn't take too much time), CNR outlets would set themselves apart in the eyes of the public in terms of credibility and quality.

Just out of curiosity...the CFP...does it face a "competing" certification? Sort of a faux "official" certification that those who can't qualify set up to give them some faux legitimacy? Essentially a "people's choice" award in lieu of an OSCAR or Emmy?

 

[Mac1958]

Just out of curiosity...the CFP...does it face a "competing" certification? Sort of a faux "official" certification that those who can't qualify set up to give them some faux legitimacy? Essentially a "people's choice" award in lieu of an OSCAR or Emmy?

Kind of. In terms of traditional financial planning, the CFP is the gold standard, at least in reputation. There are many lesser designations (I could probably name ten and there must be 30 or 40), and that muddies the waters. But in my example, there could be a few designations that have a pecking order. Also, there could be designations for both organizations and individuals.

Designations based on popularity? No. People will get this award or that popularity award from some publication, but there is no correlation. You can't even put a client endorsement in an ad for the most part. It's a tight ship. I'll bitch about in now and then, but then I remind myself that we definitely deserve hyper-scrutiny. Think Madoff, Bernie.

 

[candycorn]

Kind of. In terms of traditional financial planning, the CFP is the gold standard, at least in reputation. There are many lesser designations (I could probably name ten and there must be 30 or 40), and that muddies the waters. But in my example, there could be a few designations that have a pecking order. Also, there could be designations for both organizations and individuals.

Designations based on popularity? No. People will get this award or that popularity award from some publication, but there is no correlation. You can't even put a client endorsement in an ad for the most part. It's a tight ship. I'll bitch about in now and then, but then I remind myself that we definitely deserve hyper-scrutiny. Think Madoff, Bernie.

Nah, I didn't mean popularity... I meant that if you can't get the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences or Hollywood foreign press to give you an award... you essentially "make one up" (the people's choice award is the one I highlighted but there are many (the MTV awards)).

 

[Mac1958]

Nah, I didn't mean popularity... I meant that if you can't get the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences or Hollywood foreign press to give you an award... you essentially "make one up" (the people's choice award is the one I highlighted but there are many (the MTV awards)).

I guess that's possible. Makes me a little nervous. Madoff would have won a TON.

 

[Flopper]

I get that.

The problem here is that your solution doesn't change anything. It merely changes the image, but not the substance.

Neither of us is saying Fox is good. But you're saying if you change Fox News to "Fox" that somehow the manipulation of people is going to stop. It's not.

Fox as well as other news outlets should change their policies and how they present the news. There is nothing that can done about news commentary, nor should there be. All I'm saying is the slanting of the news does not belong in a newscast. The purpose of a newscast is not sway the audience regardless of the issue. If the news broadcasters clean up their act and management creates a wall between the news room and commentator, the image of news media will improve. It has to because our democracy can't survive when our goverment and the public discussion changes from resolution of issue to debating the existence of the issues.

 

[Flopper]

I guess that's possible. Makes me a little nervous. Madoff would have won a TON.

It depends on the award. I would say a Pulitzer Prize would definite cause management to look at their policies.

 

[Flopper]

It will be interesting to see where the GOP is 10 years from now. If they don't get control of their party away from the cartoonish figures; it may be a future that finally includes a viable third party.

A third party may be exactly what is needed. As long it is not at the extremes of either party, it could serve as a legislative dam buster. The polarization in politics makes it almost possible to pass significant legislation without full control of government. Since that happens less half the time, we are sending congressmen to Washington half the time to accomplish little or nothing accept to block the opposition party.

 

[AntonToo]

Dumb ass, the Regeneron treatment wasn't widely available a year ago.

It's available now, but you silly righties get yourself so emotionally invested in all these half-assed treatments that a year later you are still talking about HCQ.

Kids, this is your brain on cool-aid politics.