A constitutional restriction on the press

[EMNofSeattle]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So you name three cases over the course of decades, in an industry that creates literally thousands of stories every single day, and that means we should basically destroy the press? That's ****ing insane. Absolutely not.

1. Without confidential sources, there is no accountability for governments. We never would have uncovered Watergate without confidential sources. It's not unreasonable for sources to not want to come forward if it means they're going to be locked away by a corrupt institution, or assassinated, which some of them would be. Allowing confidential sources is part of how protect them from that, and protect democracy by extension. Banning confidential sources is one of the way you wind up with an autocracy. And the American public, as a rule, has been fairly good about deciding what organizations have a good enough reputation to be taken seriously with anonymous sources, and which ones don't.

2. Do you read the news, dude? They already do that even when they don't get sued. One part of being a credible news organization is putting out retractions when need be.

 

[Praxas]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

By not allowing anonymous sources no one would ever come forward to government abuses.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

By not allowing anonymous sources no one would ever come forward to government abuses.

That's not true at all. There are those who have leaked information in a public manner.

It's not just government abuses either, we have false news stories based on confidential sources, like the Rolling Stone Article about UVa

 

[Praxas]

That's not true at all. There are those who have leaked information in a public manner.

Most have done so with anonymous to protect them.

It's not just government abuses either, we have false news stories based on confidential sources, like the Rolling Stone Article about UVa

So did you voice the same concerns with anonymous sources during obamas admin or is this a "poor trump" scenario with you?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So you name three cases over the course of decades, in an industry that creates literally thousands of stories every single day, and that means we should basically destroy the press? That's ****ing insane. Absolutely not.

first off, There are far more then three cases, we can go on and on, these are only three examples, how many examples do you desire? Second, these were major cases making very serious and extreme allegations that the media organizations either knew or reasonably should have known were untrue.

1. Without confidential sources, there is no accountability for governments. We never would have uncovered Watergate without confidential sources. It's not unreasonable for sources to not want to come forward if it means they're going to be locked away by a corrupt institution, or assassinated, which some of them would be. Allowing confidential sources is part of how protect them from that, and protect democracy by extension. Banning confidential sources is one of the way you wind up with an autocracy. And the American public, as a rule, has been fairly good about deciding what organizations have a good enough reputation to be taken seriously with anonymous sources, and which ones don't.

I don't think you can seriously argue that position, who in the United States of America has been assasinated for talking to the press? I mean actually confirmed government assasination, not some crank on a blog somewhere.

2. Do you read the news, dude? They already do that even when they don't get sued. One part of being a credible news organization is putting out retractions when need be.

The put out retractions in the back of the paper or maybe mention it at the end of a news show, they do their best to make sure that it is seen by as few people as possible. I only suggested retractions be more prominent. btw you now live a country with a government office that has the power to directly fine the media and regulate their content (Ofcom) I suggested only giving individuals more ability to seek redress

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Most have done so with anonymous to protect them.



So did you voice the same concerns with anonymous sources during obamas admin or is this a "poor trump" scenario with you?

in relation to Obama no, I have voiced these concerns with the media before however during the Darren Wilson case, the UVa rolling stone story, during the Zimmerman trial, etc

all of which involved the aspects I speak of in some way or another. Now that it's on everyone's mind though it is good timing to discuss how the media does treat people unfairly in some cases.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

first off, There are far more then three cases, we can go on and on, these are only three examples, how many examples do you desire? Second, these were major cases making very serious and extreme allegations that the media organizations either knew or reasonably should have known were untrue.

I don't think you can seriously argue that position, who in the United States of America has been assasinated for talking to the press? I mean actually confirmed government assasination, not some crank on a blog somewhere.

The put out retractions in the back of the paper or maybe mention it at the end of a news show, they do their best to make sure that it is seen by as few people as possible. I only suggested retractions be more prominent. btw you now live a country with a government office that has the power to directly fine the media and regulate their content (Ofcom) I suggested only giving individuals more ability to seek redress

A hell of a lot. Again, we're talking about an industry that publishes thousands of articles every day. Even if you could name 100 since 1980, that is still a tiny fraction of one one-hundreth of a percent, or less. If any other industry on earth had that kind of success rate, you'd be shouting it from the roof tops. But because it's the press, nothing short of fantasy-level perfection will do.

As to how many assassinated or attempted, a lot actually. One of the stories that got me interested in journalism was Litvinenko, who was assassinated for speaking out against Russia. Oh, I'm sorry, did you forget other governments exist, and American reporters talk to people involved with them too?

No, they don't. They put it at the top of their article, and usually at the beginning of their program. I've seen some journalists run an entire new program talking about accountability to correct their errors. That's just Trump echo chamber bull****.

You're right, I do. Scary times in the West. What, do you guys not like other governments encroaching on America's autocratic turf? Gotta prove you guys are number one when it comes to autocracies? The UK is doing it wrong, so it's ok for you to as well?

What you suggested was completely destroying government accountability and encouraging frivolous lawsuits against the press.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A hell of a lot. Again, we're talking about an industry that publishes thousands of articles every day. Even if you could name 100 since 1980, that is still a tiny fraction of one one-hundreth of a percent, or less. If any other industry on earth had that kind of success rate, you'd be shouting it from the roof tops. But because it's the press, nothing short of fantasy-level perfection will do.

We're not talking about perfection, but knowingly running incomplete information knowing what you're doing is destroying someone's reputation, because you can't wait for details to come out, or in the case of Darren Wilson taking a story lock stock and barrel from a lawyer hired by the family of the teenager who was shot and running his speculation under the banner of their reputable news outfit destroyed his career when he did nothing wrong.

As to how many assassinated or attempted, a lot actually. One of the stories that got me interested in journalism was Litvinenko, who was assassinated for speaking out against Russia. Oh, I'm sorry, did you forget other governments exist, and American reporters talk to people involved with them too?

I was thinking my post made it clear I was speaking of the US Media and law, not those of foreign countries. admittedly that's a weak spot, I'll grant

No, they don't. They put it at the top of their article, and usually at the beginning of their program. I've seen some journalists run an entire new program talking about accountability to correct their errors. That's just Trump echo chamber bull****.

I have never seen either of those, and I watch lots of cable news, and subscribe to a daily paper.

You're right, I do. Scary times in the West. What, do you guys not like other governments encroaching on America's autocratic turf? Gotta prove you guys are number one when it comes to autocracies? The UK is doing it wrong, so it's ok for you to as well?

I think the UK is doing it wrong, I don't want a central press regulatory agency, only for it to be easier to sue the press in civil court

What you suggested was completely destroying government accountability and encouraging frivolous lawsuits against the press.

so if someone loses their job unjustly as a result of bad press reporting, you don't think that should be a civil tort ?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

We're not talking about perfection, but knowingly running incomplete information knowing what you're doing is destroying someone's reputation, because you can't wait for details to come out, or in the case of Darren Wilson taking a story lock stock and barrel from a lawyer hired by the family of the teenager who was shot and running his speculation under the banner of their reputable news outfit destroyed his career when he did nothing wrong.

I was thinking my post made it clear I was speaking of the US Media and law, not those of foreign countries. admittedly that's a weak spot, I'll grant

I have never seen either of those, and I watch lots of cable news, and subscribe to a daily paper.

I think the UK is doing it wrong, I don't want a central press regulatory agency, only for it to be easier to sue the press in civil court

so if someone loses their job unjustly as a result of bad press reporting, you don't think that should be a civil tort ?

Yeah, you're demanding fantasy perfection. The media is already a hundred times better than the government, who destroys people's lives every single day by the fistful. Wrongful imprisonment, imprisonment without trial, wars run by deception, on and on it goes. Yet you want to give them the power to destroy journalism, which is the only reason the government is even as good as it is: because the media is free to stay on its back. Including by using anonymous sources.

The US media includes foreign affairs. In fact, that's an enormous part of our news media, given that we're kind of an empire. To shrug that off as some minor thing is ridiculous. Virtually everything in America has an international angle. Also, if you think the US government has never assassinated anyone, you're living on some other planet. The CIA keeps a list of them, dude. Come on. Your whereabouts being somewhere other than Earth is confirmed by you saying you've never seen a bold retraction. Nonsense.

Yes, you do want central regulation. You want central regulation to keep sources' mouths shut by banning papers from using them anonymously, and you want central government to be allowed to bury them under frivolous lawsuits.

There's already laws against false claiming of a crime. We don't need more.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, you're demanding fantasy perfection. The media is already a hundred times better than the government, who destroys people's lives every single day by the fistful. Wrongful imprisonment, imprisonment without trial, wars run by deception, on and on it goes. Yet you want to give them the power to destroy journalism, which is the only reason the government is even as good as it is: because the media is free to stay on its back. Including by using anonymous sources.

The US media includes foreign affairs. In fact, that's an enormous part of our news media, given that we're kind of an empire. To shrug that off as some minor thing is ridiculous. Virtually everything in America has an international angle. Also, if you think the US government has never assassinated anyone, you're living on some other planet. The CIA keeps a list of them, dude. Come on. Your whereabouts being somewhere other than Earth is confirmed by you saying you've never seen a bold retraction. Nonsense.

Yes, you do want central regulation. You want central regulation to keep sources' mouths shut by banning papers from using them anonymously, and you want central government to be allowed to bury them under frivolous lawsuits.

There's already laws against false claiming of a crime. We don't need more.

I don't think anyone considers civil courts to be centralized government. in fact no function of government is more decentralized then our civil court system. "frivolous lawsuit" is an argument you're using the evade the question. the vast majority of lawsuits filed are not frivolous, in fact you are apparently now demanding perfection of every government function while misrepresenting me of demanding media perfection, when in fact I stated not that the media must be perfect, but that they're financially accountable.


and stop bringing foreign governments into this, we do not imprison people without trial in this society.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I don't think anyone considers civil courts to be centralized government. in fact no function of government is more decentralized then our civil court system. "frivolous lawsuit" is an argument you're using the evade the question. the vast majority of lawsuits filed are not frivolous, in fact you are apparently now demanding perfection of every government function while misrepresenting me of demanding media perfection, when in fact I stated not that the media must be perfect, but that they're financially accountable.


and stop bringing foreign governments into this, we do not imprison people without trial in this society.

*sigh* But who are you proposing will be the ones to ban journalism from using those sources? The federal government. It's central government control of journalism. Stop squirreling around this.

Actually they are frivilous. Even most of the lawsuits against journalists right now either never get off the ground, or are decided for the defendant. Know why? Because American journalists are actually really good a their jobs. And that means people try to sue us a lot.

We've all had people try to sue us, dude. A lot of the time it doesn't get further than the research stage because the first amendment protects us. But we've all had someone with a good lawyer tell us that they're sending them after us.

I had a guy try to sue me even though I had the quote he was mad about on recording. Obviously it didn't go anywhere, but think about this for two seconds.

The job of a journalist is to report stuff where there's usually someone who doesn't want it to be reported. There's a saying in the media: "if no one is mad at you, you're not doing your job."

We have people pissed at us every single day. Hell, I stopped doing it a couple years ago and I'm pretty sure some of those people are still mad at me. And usually, they're bad people who've done something wrong. That's why they're upset about their actions being reported.

So we have angry crazy people who are prone to impulsive actions on our ass at all times. And you seriously think frivolous lawsuits are rare?

Not even close, Frivolous lawsuits are 99% of what journalists deal with. Threatening a lawsuit is the standard thing that every angry asshole says to us, every time someone finds out they're doing things they shouldn't be, and we report it.

Threatening us with financial drain is how they try to destroy us. And the first amendment is what stops them from succeeding. You are proposing to destroy that, opening journalism up to endless court fees defending against flimsy cases, and to destroy journalism and accountability by proxy.

And finally, I just want to ask you when the **** the people at Guantanamo are gonna get their trial. It's been 15 ****ing years for some of them. Don't even lie about that. It is disgraceful how long some of America's prisoners have gone without trial.

 

[Crovax]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

Anonymous speech is an integral part of free speech and that includes anonymous sources.

I do find it ironic that all the people railing against anonymous speech seem to do so behind anonymous user names.

 

[ecofarm]

A rumor about him paying someone to pee and we get "no more anonymous sources". Absurd.

Is he gonna sue Putin for the pee story?

 

[joG]

That's not true at all. There are those who have leaked information in a public manner.

It's not just government abuses either, we have false news stories based on confidential sources, like the Rolling Stone Article about UVa

I don't think that we can force journalists to name sources, if we want anything even clise to a free press in any meaningful sense. All confidential communication would have to stop.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

Will this all also apply to Trump and his off-the-cuff lies?

 

[holbritter]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

I get what you are saying. As a matter of fact you didn't even mention the government in your OP

It has become a race for "Who's first" instead of who's accurate. All for ratings. I agree they should be held accountable. They print or report a story that is false and it damages someones life, they there should be recourse.
If someone is saying that they can't take the time to verify facts before reporting them, then they are agreeing it's ok to report lies. It's ok to ruin someone's life.

We had our local paper report a fire that killed a couple of people including my friends father. Only it wasn't true. Reading that I was thinking OMG so and so died and immediately went to my friends house. Of course everything was ok, so no big deal right? But the cards and flowers kept coming to her house for weeks afterwards. The paper did print a retraction, but it was buried so deep no one saw it.

I know in the scheme of things, this is minor. At least it didn't ruin someone's life, where they are looked at like a criminal every where they go, just because the journalist couldn't take the time to verify facts.

 

[KevinKohler]

One of my biggest complaints I have about the mass media is that they have a near unlimited ability to destroy people's lives by propogating a false story.

Fake news is not just a political term, it's a very real crisis that is destroying lives. Darren Wilson had his life upended for doing nothing wrong, biased media coverage resulted in a Miami cop named Luis Alvarez facing a show trial in the 1980s. The infamous story of a gang rape that never happened at UVa, we see numerous cases of the press taking things out of context for ratings, so I have two ideas

1) no more confidential sources, as Trump said at CPAC, it's very simple, if a media story defames your character you can sue the outlet, during the lawsuit there is a legal process called "discovery" where you can obtain information held by the defendant that is germane to your case, the identity of any "confidential sources" should be compelled by discovery during such suits. once compelled it becomes part of the court record of the suit.

2) if a court rules against you in a libel claim, you as the news media outlet must publish a front page (or prime time) retraction. it will read "REGARDING OUR STORY ON <fill in title of article here> INFORMATION CONVEYED ABOUT <name of plaintiff> WAS DETERMINED BY <the court that found against the media outlet> TO BE LIBELOUS IN NATURE, PLEASE READ THE RETRACTIONS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION

Neither of these restrict the content of stories, it simply provides victims of bad reporting tools to help clear their name. it also will provide incentives to verify stories and help publish more accurate news items, which will restore public faith in the press.

You are making the same argument gun control advocates make.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Will this all also apply to Trump and his off-the-cuff lies?

Sure, if you can prove direct financial and reputation damage

 

[code1211]

So you name three cases over the course of decades, in an industry that creates literally thousands of stories every single day, and that means we should basically destroy the press? That's ****ing insane. Absolutely not.

1. Without confidential sources, there is no accountability for governments. We never would have uncovered Watergate without confidential sources. It's not unreasonable for sources to not want to come forward if it means they're going to be locked away by a corrupt institution, or assassinated, which some of them would be. Allowing confidential sources is part of how protect them from that, and protect democracy by extension. Banning confidential sources is one of the way you wind up with an autocracy. And the American public, as a rule, has been fairly good about deciding what organizations have a good enough reputation to be taken seriously with anonymous sources, and which ones don't.

2. Do you read the news, dude? They already do that even when they don't get sued. One part of being a credible news organization is putting out retractions when need be.

Both the kind of sanctions in the post to which you respond and your response are a little extreme.

Perhaps a review by an unbiased court of some kind of appeals that reviews the source's credibility immediately and confidentially...

In light of revelations on the neutrality of courts, though, finding an unbiased court might be challenging.

The victims of poor reporting and poorly founded political witch hunts are entitled to ask the same question: "Who do I see to get my reputation back?"

People like Al Sharpton are only too willing to destroy anyone to find a little camera time. Facts, truth and honesty have no connection to what these shisters will do to get their face(s) on the tube.

 

[JC Callender]

Anonymous speech is an integral part of free speech and that includes anonymous sources.

I do find it ironic that all the people railing against anonymous speech seem to do so behind anonymous user names.

To be fair, the arguments here would probably be more honest and civil if everyone used their real names. And that goes for the internet in general. The fact that most of us use fake names is also a protection against vindictive anonymous people who can potentially harm us without the ability for us to seek retribution.

 

[JC Callender]

I don't think that we can force journalists to name sources, if we want anything even clise to a free press in any meaningful sense. All confidential communication would have to stop.

Why would all cc have to stop? You could speak all you want confidentially up until you're 100% sure your story is true and you're ready to print.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't think that we can force journalists to name sources, if we want anything even clise to a free press in any meaningful sense. All confidential communication would have to stop.

Well you can punish the reporter for not doing so.

Courts have generally ruled that outside of specific statute there is no constitutional right against having to name sources.

In one case a federal court ruled a journalist who wrote a story that led to a doctor being criminally charged had to disclose his sources because the defendant had a right to compel his sources to appear as defense witnesses, in another the Supreme Court ruled that journalists are simply private citizens and to give them the power to shield sources would grant them more rights then the general public.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are making the same argument gun control advocates make.

How so?

If I fire my gun and blow out the windshield of my neighbors car a civil court can order me to replace the windshield.

 

[KevinKohler]

How so?

If I fire my gun and blow out the windshield of my neighbors car a civil court can order me to replace the windshield.

No, you're saying that because someone could get hurt,bee should have restrictions on the freedom of the press.