SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
FatPhil
on Monday February 06 2017, @09:17PM
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bad Idea or the Worst Idea? Having the FTC Regulate "Fake News"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 134 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:41PM
Under no circumstances should a government in a self proclaimed free country regulate news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:45AM
They're not. They're regulating fake news out of existence. As long as the organization has actual sources to cover their articles, then that ought to be enough. In that case, it's not fake news it's news that's just shitty. Shitty news is best dealt with by the market deciding that the news outlet isn't trust worthy.
Journals that can't provide sources for the quotes they're attributing to people are and should be put out of business. That's not a particularly difficult line to draw. Sure, there's some fuzziness about accidental misquotes or cases where people change their minds about being quoted in print, but those are things that are already dealt with by the courts. Going the further step of shutting down papers that as a matter of routine make their articles up, isn't as problematic as people seem to think.
It is something that can be done in a way that's fair minded and doesn't adversely effect actual news outlets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:55PM
I'm all but certain that Woodward and Bernstein would vehemently disagree. In fact, one of the criticisms of their Watergate coverage was the use of unnamed sources. At the time it was rather controversial. Of course, they did have actual people as sources for their Watergate stories; they just couldn't name them for fear of retaliation. The problem we have today is very different. The fake news stories that are being circulated do not have any sources because the events described are frequently made up out of whole cloth. And these fake news stories do have real consequences. [politifact.com] So, where to draw the line? Should the Washington Post have been put out of business because Woodward and Bernstein were not naming their deep undercover sources? How do you determine the difference between reporters of a legitimate story who don't want to name their sources because of fear of reprisal and reporters of fake news who do not have any sources to back up their incredible claims? Do they not look more or less equally suspect to the naive reader? I think that line is much harder to draw than you seem to imagine. Shouldn't the onus really be on the individual readers to critically evaluate the stories they are reading? At what point do we hold the readers accountable for evaluating the news they consume? And how should we hold each other accountable for falling for made up bullshit? Would it even make a difference or are people just so emotionally invested in the alternative narrative of reality being peddled that facts just don't matter to them anymore?
Yeah. Says you. What would you propose? Some sort of federal commission to evaluate news stories for "truthiness"? Who would be put in charge of said commission? You do realize that the Republicans now have control of two branches of the federal government, right? Would you be comfortable with Donald Trump naming members to this new commission to ferret out (and punish) untruthiness? Seriously?!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:40PM
Well said. For dessert why don't we have HHS allow people to be just a little bit pregnant in order to cut down on health costs. It would be about the same success as trying to limit or regulate the first amendment just a little bit.