Truth to the Public

All news media outlets and elected officials must present the truth to the public.

MEDIA
All news outlets are legally mandated to be honest in their broadcasts or face severe fines. Additionally any error in a prior broadcast must be corrected at the beginning of the next show in a clear manner, at a reasonable pace to ensure every viewer understands the error and the correction. Admissions of fault must also be prominently placed on the shows main web page.

News outlets and their carrying stations in repeated violation of this provision will be stripped of the FCC rights to broadcast.


Non-news shows are exempt from this provision so long as they clearly exempt themselves by displaying "entertainment only, not factual" at the beginning of the show.

Shows that are partially news, partially entertainment must follow this statute, excepting that they may clearly label their entertainment or opinion segments to be "entertainment only" to meet this provision.

Bill, I agree with politicians but how do you write it? How do you prove willful deceit?

Clinton, I think, would have been found guilty of lies. It is a simple question - did you or did you not do X?

But in other respects, what if the intel they have, the report they are working off of says one thing and someone says another?

How do we ascertain a politician who genuinely wonders if Obama is American born and one who is propagating it as a lie for their own gain?

IE how do we write it? We can't say "a politician, who should know better, states something false..."

Sorry I didn't posit this very eloquently.

Here is an example of a lie from Sen. Mitch Mcconnell http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/mcconnells-debt-claim-rejected/

I think Factcheck.org does a good job of finding the truth. We could have a division of the FCC monitor this. If the politician is found to be telling false information then they will need to publicly correct it or face fines.

Oh no doubt they are incorrect. But when is it a lie and when is it stupidity, gullibility or incompetence?

We all pass on a hoax from time to time without meaning too.

We both know this needs to be in the declaration but it is not there yet. I will think about my version of the wording but at this point I don't know how much time we should spend on something that might not make it into the final draft. I love where this discussion is going and will keep pushing to get it in the final draft.

The final wording is likely to change but I think we should offer some sort of draft version.

True I don't know what I was thinking.

While I think your heart is in the right place, I dont think this is something that we can mandate. Theres too many areas where there would be loopholes and a lot of offenses would be judgment calls. If a news org runs with a story that has a poor source, that has happened since the beginning of the news media. You are also advocating for more bureaucracy w/ your suggested arm of the FCC, which is the last thing we need.

The only way the media will reform is if the people stop listening to it. Its mostly sensationalized garbage nowadays.

Instead, I would make it simpler, to be called a "News" organization a set of standards must be met.

I know too that this infringes on the rights of free speech, but I think there is a way to make it work. I will be doing some research on this. There have been some attempts at this in the past and other counties have passed similar laws.

It does not have to be the FCC that does the fact checking, that was just a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with Government oversight so long as it is efficient and provides a service in the people's best interest.

I think another thing would be to ban commercials during news casts.

Bill Schultz wrote:I know too that this infringes on the rights of free speech, but I think there is a way to make it work. I will be doing some research on this. There have been some attempts at this in the past and other counties have passed similar laws.

It does not have to be the FCC that does the fact checking, that was just a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with Government oversight so long as it is efficient and provides a service in the people's best interest.

I think another thing would be to ban commercials during news casts.

News organizations are private organizations for the most part though. To ban commercials during newscasts, you're taking away a revenue stream for them. A compromise I could see, is that the first 15 minutes of a broadcast has to be commercial-free, but I cannot see something like the banning outright of commercials. How would 24 hour "news" channels be handled? I could see limitations on commercials, but that is a legitimate revenue stream for those companies.

Personally, I can't support anything that infringes on free speech/free press in even the slightest way. I think Rush Limbaugh is despicable, but I'm going to defend his right to be despicable until he can be prosecuted criminally or he dies.

I agree that the news media is out of control as it is now with the amount of skewed information we receive, but I think mandating via government a control mechanism gives it a totalitarian feel to me and if the wrong people are put in charge, it could be very bad. Its a fine line and the opponents of it would be innumerable.

There used to be a Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC in radio broadcasting. Bringing that back and expanding it to other media, at least as far as television, radio and print media are concerned, might improve the current situation.

ihave19voices wrote:

Personally, I can't support anything that infringes on free speech/free press in even the slightest way. I think Rush Limbaugh is despicable, but I'm going to defend his right to be despicable until he can be prosecuted criminally or he dies.

I agree that the news media is out of control as it is now with the amount of skewed information we receive, but I think mandating via government a control mechanism gives it a totalitarian feel to me and if the wrong people are put in charge, it could be very bad. Its a fine line and the opponents of it would be innumerable.

Let me ask it this way; Are we infringing on the individual's right or the right of the company? I do not think it is the individual's right we are infringing upon since they are employees of said company.

This then brings up the question of; Do companies have the same rights as people? The Supreme Court says they do but I would not feel bad telling them that they can not lie. We should be able to hold companies accountable for their broadcasts.

Bill Schultz wrote:

ihave19voices wrote:

Personally, I can't support anything that infringes on free speech/free press in even the slightest way. I think Rush Limbaugh is despicable, but I'm going to defend his right to be despicable until he can be prosecuted criminally or he dies.

I agree that the news media is out of control as it is now with the amount of skewed information we receive, but I think mandating via government a control mechanism gives it a totalitarian feel to me and if the wrong people are put in charge, it could be very bad. Its a fine line and the opponents of it would be innumerable.

Let me ask it this way; Are we infringing on the individual's right or the right of the company? I do not think it is the individual's right we are infringing upon since they are employees of said company.

This then brings up the question of; Do companies have the same rights as people? The Supreme Court says they do but I would not feel bad telling them that they can not lie. We should be able to hold companies accountable for their broadcasts.

I think "corporate personhood" is one of the stupidest theories I've ever heard and its something that needs to be overturned. Its a slap in the face of the Founding Fathers.

I feel that the gov't getting involved with media regulations is entirely a first amendment issue. What Im worried about, is lets say theres a scandal or something and the media goes to report it and then the gov't squashes the story. They already do that and its almost entirely because of access. The media wants as much access as they can get, so they'll downplay stuff or not even report it at all so as not to lose access to whomever or whatever they're reporting on. Its exactly why OWS doesnt have much traction with the corporate media.

I do agree that the media needs to be held accountable, but mistakes are going to be made on both sides. I think its a fine line when we bring the gov't into the media and it could create more problems than it will solve.

There's many "media watchdogs" out there, they need to be propped more so that the common man is aware of them.

ihave19voices wrote:

I feel that the gov't getting involved with media regulations is entirely a first amendment issue. What Im worried about, is lets say theres a scandal or something and the media goes to report it and then the gov't squashes the story. They already do that and its almost entirely because of access. The media wants as much access as they can get, so they'll downplay stuff or not even report it at all so as not to lose access to whomever or whatever they're reporting on. Its exactly why OWS doesnt have much traction with the corporate media.

I do agree that the media needs to be held accountable, but mistakes are going to be made on both sides. I think its a fine line when we bring the gov't into the media and it could create more problems than it will solve.

There's many "media watchdogs" out there, they need to be propped more so that the common man is aware of them.

I don't think the gov't has anything, directly, to do with the lack of coverage. I tend to think it is the corporate sponsors that pull the strings. This is why I proposed not allowing ads during news casts. I can see the point of how do 24 hour news channels make money. For this I do not have an answer, yet.

It is possible that this topic might be THE most important topic here. However it has not been amply discussed.

We could propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring all officials of state, corporations or the media be held to the highest standards of truthfulness when providing official statements to the public, under Federal penalty of perjury. The FBI should be empowered with a Department of Accuracy in Statesmanship and Public Affairs, to hold accountable persons responsible for truthfulness in information to the public in matters of gravity, to include statesmanship, regulation of any kind, corporate affairs, particularly pertaining to public statements of profit or corporate affairs having an effect on the physical or financial well-being of the public at large.

NuclearRadio79 wrote:It is possible that this topic might be THE most important topic here. However it has not been amply discussed.

We could propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring all officials of state, corporations or the media be held to the highest standards of truthfulness when providing official statements to the public, under Federal penalty of perjury. The FBI should be empowered with a Department of Accuracy in Statesmanship and Public Affairs, to hold accountable persons responsible for truthfulness in information to the public in matters of gravity, to include statesmanship, regulation of any kind, corporate affairs, particularly pertaining to public statements of profit or corporate affairs having an effect on the physical or financial well-being of the public at large.

We are compiling of grievances not rewriting the Constitution. So our solutions will need to fit within current laws.

The way to tie this issue to OWS, (which is all about money), is to keep in mind that we, the People of the United States own the mediums on which the media propagate. Due to sheer corruption from the 1%, our government agencies charged with protecting this natural resource on behalf of the 99% have failed in their duties and have allowed media to become dominated by monopolistic corporations that are wholly unaccountable to the 99%. What we should simply be asking for is a return of our corrupted natural resources (i.e. the airwaves that we collectively own and rent out) from the current media corporations, and a reformation of the government agencies that rent out and regulate those natural resources. The grievance is against concentrated media power in the current monopolies, failure to regulate our natural resources in a manner beneficial to the people, failure to break up monopolies, etc. These are all within the current law.

This issue isn't that hard to reconcile with the One Demand: We want our power back from the 1%, and that includes the power to properly regulate and allocate our collective natural resources for the benefit of the people over for-profit corporations. Break up the media companies, regulate (limit) concentrated ownership, provide for public access to bandwidth across all mediums, etc. You can't regulate the messages, but if we have the right structure, the media will function effectively.

Respectfully,

Darin