Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: A constitutional restriction on the press

  1. #41
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    07-14-18 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,282

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    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.
    Yeah, this is the problem, and this is why the government has absolutely no business whatsoever trying to micromanage the press, ever, under any circumstances. You wanna turn the industry that keeps things accountable over to a government that is trying to force its own intelligence agency to lie for an agenda? No ****ing way.

    The system for dealing with false accusations is fine as it is. It is already a punishable crime to falsely accuse someone of a crime. It is already possible to sue a journalist for libel if they were negligent (if they weren't negligent, then your accusation would go back to the accuser).

    Believe me, journalists are well-taught to avoid being libelous, and they put a lot of work into avoiding it. That's why they are so rarely successfully sued. They do their jobs well on the whole. Fact is, there are very few "victims" of bad reporting. Most people who lose face due to the media lose it because they did something wrong. Well, maybe they shouldda thought of that before they did it.

    Rarely, that's not the case, but the reality is that no system can ever be perfect, and trying to micromanage them isn't going to change that. That's just an immutable fact of reality. But journalism is about as good as it's realistically possible to get, and there is already a system for reprimanding them when they don't do their jobs properly. We don't need more.

    Al Sharpton is allowed to be an obnoxious talking head. That is not a crime, and the government doesn't have a right to silence him.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 02-27-17 at 06:01 AM.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,223

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yeah, this is the problem, and this is why the government has absolutely no business whatsoever trying to micromanage the press, ever, under any circumstances. You wanna turn the industry that keeps things accountable over to a government that is trying to force its own intelligence agency to lie for an agenda? No ****ing way.

    The system for dealing with false accusations is fine as it is. It is already a punishable crime to falsely accuse someone of a crime. It is already possible to sue a journalist for libel if they were negligent (if they weren't negligent, then your accusation would go back to the accuser).

    Believe me, journalists are well-taught to avoid being libelous, and they put a lot of work into avoiding it. That's why they are so rarely successfully sued. They do their jobs well on the whole. Fact is, there are very few "victims" of bad reporting. Most people who lose face due to the media lose it because they did something wrong. Well, maybe they shouldda thought of that before they did it.

    Rarely, that's not the case, but the reality is that no system can ever be perfect, and trying to micromanage them isn't going to change that. That's just an immutable fact of reality. But journalism is about as good as it's realistically possible to get, and there is already a system for reprimanding them when they don't do their jobs properly. We don't need more.

    Al Sharpton is allowed to be an obnoxious talking head. That is not a crime, and the government doesn't have a right to silence him.
    Al Sharpton is not a reporter. The sycophantic stenographers in the press dutifully report his biased assumptions and lies with no context to judge his truthiness.

    This is, in it's own way, a lie. So is reporting without context that "sources say" or that something is "causing questions". At the same time, adding context to some reports and not to others is bias:

    The bank was robbed by Sam Jones. The bank was robbed by Sam Jones, a black man.

    Back to Al, if the context provided is that Al is a noted civlil rights advocate, that creates one context. If the context provided is that Al is a loud mouthed advocate for his own screen time who has been known to distort and corrupt the truth, that is wholly another.

    Arguably, both narratives are true.

    Journalists are, as you say, "well-taught to avoid being libelous". This does not mean that they are tring to relay an accurate report of the events as they happened. It means they are taught to source their assertions.

    If you say in the paper that Al Sharpton is a Klan member, that might be actionable against you. If a reporter heard you say that and then published, "According to Smoke and Mirrors, Al Sharpton is a Klan member", that is not actionable against the reporter.

    The accuracy of the statement regarding Al is no longer at issue. The legal issue for the reporter is whether or not you said what he said you said. Libel avoided. Very probably a lie is spread.

    The press using techniques like the quote, the unattributed quote and the "raising questions" ploy is protected against libel and that is why you see so many devices like this employed.

    Do we suspend the first amendment in order to avoid these techniques of lying. Probably not a good idea. Would it be a good idea for the editorial staffs of the major news sources to actually police their own work through professional and ethical work standards and practices? Probably so.

    CBS is in the forefront in critiquing a Drudge-like operation as not having a robust editorial process and yet their editorial staff approved a Dan Rather hosted hour long lie about George W Bush. Disgraceful. Murrow must have been spinning like a pinwheel in his grave.

    Like it or not, the Yellow Journalism of our past is back and stringer than ever. The Agenda and political slant of every national news outlet is apparent and obvious for all to see.

    Propaganda is what we are fed. It's all that's available. Pick your poison and drink it to the bottom.
    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, ...every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. -George Orwell

  3. #43
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    07-14-18 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,282

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Al Sharpton is not a reporter. The sycophantic stenographers in the press dutifully report his biased assumptions and lies with no context to judge his truthiness.

    This is, in it's own way, a lie. So is reporting without context that "sources say" or that something is "causing questions". At the same time, adding context to some reports and not to others is bias:

    The bank was robbed by Sam Jones. The bank was robbed by Sam Jones, a black man.

    Back to Al, if the context provided is that Al is a noted civlil rights advocate, that creates one context. If the context provided is that Al is a loud mouthed advocate for his own screen time who has been known to distort and corrupt the truth, that is wholly another.

    Arguably, both narratives are true.

    Journalists are, as you say, "well-taught to avoid being libelous". This does not mean that they are tring to relay an accurate report of the events as they happened. It means they are taught to source their assertions.

    If you say in the paper that Al Sharpton is a Klan member, that might be actionable against you. If a reporter heard you say that and then published, "According to Smoke and Mirrors, Al Sharpton is a Klan member", that is not actionable against the reporter.

    The accuracy of the statement regarding Al is no longer at issue. The legal issue for the reporter is whether or not you said what he said you said. Libel avoided. Very probably a lie is spread.

    The press using techniques like the quote, the unattributed quote and the "raising questions" ploy is protected against libel and that is why you see so many devices like this employed.

    Do we suspend the first amendment in order to avoid these techniques of lying. Probably not a good idea. Would it be a good idea for the editorial staffs of the major news sources to actually police their own work through professional and ethical work standards and practices? Probably so.

    CBS is in the forefront in critiquing a Drudge-like operation as not having a robust editorial process and yet their editorial staff approved a Dan Rather hosted hour long lie about George W Bush. Disgraceful. Murrow must have been spinning like a pinwheel in his grave.

    Like it or not, the Yellow Journalism of our past is back and stringer than ever. The Agenda and political slant of every national news outlet is apparent and obvious for all to see.

    Propaganda is what we are fed. It's all that's available. Pick your poison and drink it to the bottom.
    I know. And he's still allowed to say what he likes. It's called freedom of speech, dude. No one is refering to Al Sharpton as a "source" of information. That's nonsense.

    They also report Ann Coulter's opinions, and Pat Robertson's opinions, and all kinds of other lunatics to the right. So why is it that you're only all worked about the one on the left?

    Sounds to me like you're not so much interested in making the press more "fair" as you are in just silencing people you don't like.

    If I said Al Sharpton was a Klan member and for some reason I was a big enough deal for anyone to care what I said, then any reasonable journalist worth their salt would check if Ihe was registered with the Klan, and add "According to Klan records, Al Sharpton is not a member, nor has he ever been associated with the Klan."

    The impression would then be that I were a crackpot for saying something baseless, and people would be less likely to take him seriously. Which is EXACTLY what happens in reality. And same with Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, et al. Part of why journalists sometimes run crazy quotes like that is exactly so that they can debunk them. That's the whole point.

    Again, why do you only care about silencing people you politically disagree with?

  4. #44
    Sage
    cuban smokes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,652

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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.

    we have courts; people can sue for libel ........... why 'kill' the free press?

    governments & law enforcement agencies have also destroyed people's lives by propagating false stories; the press has not caused near the grief as those two .........
    **** it; I don't give a **** ..........

  5. #45
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    07-20-18 @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    79,735

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.
    I thought we have whistleblower laws now.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS. #MAGA

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,223

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I know. And he's still allowed to say what he likes. It's called freedom of speech, dude. No one is refering to Al Sharpton as a "source" of information. That's nonsense.

    They also report Ann Coulter's opinions, and Pat Robertson's opinions, and all kinds of other lunatics to the right. So why is it that you're only all worked about the one on the left?

    Sounds to me like you're not so much interested in making the press more "fair" as you are in just silencing people you don't like.

    If I said Al Sharpton was a Klan member and for some reason I was a big enough deal for anyone to care what I said, then any reasonable journalist worth their salt would check if Ihe was registered with the Klan, and add "According to Klan records, Al Sharpton is not a member, nor has he ever been associated with the Klan."

    The impression would then be that I were a crackpot for saying something baseless, and people would be less likely to take him seriously. Which is EXACTLY what happens in reality. And same with Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, et al. Part of why journalists sometimes run crazy quotes like that is exactly so that they can debunk them. That's the whole point.

    Again, why do you only care about silencing people you politically disagree with?
    If I in any way endorsed the censorship of any opinion, I apologize. I was talking about reporting opinions, not the opinions reported.

    The provision of context in reporting might be a good thing, but that context is provided by the person that provides it. Most people have a life story that will color the context they provide.

    The reason I cited Al Sharpton is that he is used as a news source in the case of Tawana Brawley and he was more than glad to help. By reporting the Al Said something, the reporter is protected. The point is not who said what. The point is that the reporter is protected when he can attribute the statement to anyone.

    Including Al Sharpton in this story leant to it some weight that, as it turned out, was not deserved. He was there to demonstrate the community's outrage. The outrage was real, but the event on which the outrage was based was fake. Reporting one to substantiate the other was wrong.

    The extremists on either end of the political spectrum are not to be trusted. Getting back to Rev.Al, he was quoted in the Brawley case and yet a balancing opinion from a Klans Man was not.

    Any thoughts on what this might say about the reporter's bias?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana...pe_allegations
    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, ...every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. -George Orwell

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,965

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    This is why we have slander suits etc ...
    this is to keep the press in check or it is supposed to.

    the problem is that there is so much slop being slung out there for so called journalism that it is impossible to keep
    up to date on let alone process it all.

    buyer beware in this case.

  8. #48
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    06-19-18 @ 02:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,565

    Re: A constitutional restriction on the press

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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.
    An honest press is required to hold politicians accountable.

    It's unfortunate the standards of what used to be an honorable profession has fallen so far.

    The problem is they are not held accountable by their peers. The echo chamber bubble has encompassed a great many and the American people just need to ride it out.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=67zEy_hgRPw

    This guy points out a discrepancy between anonymous sources and McMasters and literally gets yelled at by a CNN host.

    Journalistic Professionalism is out the window at this point. It takes with it any semblance of credibility.

    It's too much power to be able to drive by and toss out an unsubstantiated story like a bomb and leave devastation behind.
    Thank you

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •