SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the first-we-need-an-ethics-board-for-politicians dept.
Georgia Republicans Push for State 'Journalism Ethics Board':
Six Republican state representatives in Georgia have moved to create an "ethics board" for journalists that would require news organizations to provide copies of pictures and audio and video recordings of interviews to subjects who request them or risk civil penalty.
The cost of meeting those requests would be paid by the news organizations.
The proposed legislation, House Bill 734, titled the "Ethics in Journalism Act," was sponsored Tuesday by Rep. Andy Welch, who represents the city of McDonough.
The bill would create a board of media professionals and academics that would produce"a canon of ethics" and "develop a voluntary accreditation process in journalism ethics," which would also allow for the investigation and sanctioning of journalists.
This bill isn't really about local news publishers (although they would be censored too) this is about censoring CNN which is headquartered in Atlanta.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sulla on Friday April 05 2019, @11:29PM (24 children)
So you mean that if I get interviewed by my local news for whatever reason, they chop it up for sound-bytes and it makes me look bad because some intern who doesn't understand finance made a okay thing sound like a bad thing, that I can't request a copy of the interview to protect my name/company/whatever?
I don't want the government involved with regulating media, at all. At the same point I think that the media would want to be open about this because their whole brand is supposed to be truth.
Rather than argue that "these guys are insane, why would they want this" the media in that area should respond by making all of their information open (honor requests to get copies of interviews that you/your organization were part of). This would make the bill pointless because the problem was solved. It would be a PR win for the media companies and blunt the law from passing.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @12:21AM (8 children)
What would be the point? You can record it yourself without imposing on the local news. Libel/slander law still works.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:07AM (7 children)
Almost any media outlet will refuse to do the interview if the subject shows up with his own camera crew.
They're not interested in the truth. They have the story already written before they interview anyone; they're just looking for some sound bytes to make the person look like however their story needs them to look. If there's a camera there that they don't control, recording the actual truth, they'll bail.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:36AM (5 children)
Right. And some states require both parties permission for something to be recorded. So you could authorize them but they refuse to authorize you.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:16AM (4 children)
That's only over the phone. There is no such requirement in person. The closest thing is that publishers typically get a release to cover their ass in case a clip gets used in a commercial (rather than just in a straight news story for which there is ample 1st amdt protection). But a private citizen will never need such a thing to make their own recording that they post on youtube or twitter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:55PM (3 children)
False, at least in WA (unless you are press, then you have carte blanche). https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 [wa.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)
Read more carefully, those are all over the telephone or equivalent. Its all about wiretapping. None of that applies in person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:22PM
Wrong. Here is the omitted paragraph dealing with "wiretapping" followed by the one about private conversation:
If paragraph (b) was about wiretapping, paragraph (a) is redundant, and it is a basic foundation of statutory construction that legislatures do not engage in useless acts such as redundancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation [wikipedia.org] See: Rule against surplusage
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:45PM
Some of those exceptions are funny, how the hell do you know someone's going to threaten you or that it's a harrasing phone call beforehand, so you can set up your recording device?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:54AM
And what's the problem with that?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:04AM (1 child)
Many things are not what they are "supposed" to be.
Did you believe Google when they said they were not evil? Do you believe a used car salesman when he says the car was only driven every other Sunday by a nice nun and her nine nieces? Then why do you believe the media when they tell you they're telling you the truth? That is, after all, precisely what a liar would say, isn't it?
The only thing the media wants to be open is your throat as they shove their lies down it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @07:52PM
No Puppy, it is not your throat that they will be shoving stuff into.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @07:49AM (8 children)
Nobody can force you in the interview.
So, next time they ask you to sit one, condition your approval to broadcast it on a delivery of a copy of the full and edited version of the interview.
If they don't agree, decline the interview.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @09:37AM (2 children)
And when they agree, but then later renege on that agreement, misrepresent you, potentially put your life in danger, and then stonewall you when you seek justice and restitution; what are you going to do when they have a team of expensive lawyers and you don't?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 06 2019, @11:22AM (1 child)
Any verbal agreement worth as much as the paper is printed on.
If you have it in writing, signed by them, there's a contractual law suit quite easy to win.
Then you have your money to sue for slander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday April 06 2019, @07:55PM
Does that mean that virtually all EULAs are invalid?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @02:22PM (3 children)
Here's an example involving the Trayvon Martin case 911 call where editing changed the nature of the call. NBC omitted dialogue to make Zimmerman sound racist. It also eliminated Zimmerman's response when the 911 dispatcher said Zimmerman didn't need to follow him (Z's response was "OK" and while he didn't instantly stop, it shortly becomes clear that he did stop and he lost track of where Martin was).
NBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQ_0IAjMzM [youtube.com]
Unedited: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04Vh4do6bY [youtube.com]
There is no doubt that most media companies are trying to push a narrative of one sort or another no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. The lead up to the Iraq war put that into my consciousness. The treatment of Bernie Sanders in the last election cycle burned it there. I have zero faith in the media at this point. When something comes up in the news, I always try to find the source material -- I view the media as an incredibly unreliable encyclopedia worthwhile only as a source of citations so to speak, and then try to read/watch the full unedited, unfiltered source materials. When I can do that, I find that more often then not, I disagree with the slant placed on the original story.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:48PM (2 children)
Surely, the ultra-loyal Republican Guard would have persuaded you otherwise!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @04:57PM (1 child)
You mean the NY TImes? Cause the NYT was a big cheerleader you know. Just look at how bloodthirsty HRC was -- Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. Both are steeped in imperial traditions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @05:06PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @09:28PM
"Nobody can force you in the interview.
So, next time they ask you to sit one, condition your approval to broadcast it on a delivery of a copy of the full and edited version of the interview.
If they don't agree, decline the interview."
I believe Obama tried that with Faux News once upon a time. They've been in a snit ever since.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @04:21PM (1 child)
The main issues that need fixing in terms of journalistic ethics are the fairness doctrine being reinstated and they need to stop going for fair and balanced. They need to go back to objective. Some issues just don't have 2 sides with equal validity. And in most cases that's the case, the anti-vaxxers do not have an equally valid viewpoint to those that generally support vaccinations. The people who are pushing the corporate takeover of everything do not have an equally valid point to those that want to ensure that corporations are subjected to regulations to prevent them from destroying the country.
The news media behaving as if those sides all have the same level of validity in terms of beliefs is a huge part of why we can't solve our biggest problems. You have people thinking that it's valid to cut taxes on the richest people while we have tens of thousands of homeless people, including some who actually work fulltime jobs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @05:10PM
Or maybe it's people who want regulation scaled back to a sane level versus Luddites willing to burn down society just to spite their favorite bogeyman. The proper rhetoric can spice up a mere disagreement over regulation, but maybe it's not so useful for determining who has a legitimate viewpoint.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 06 2019, @07:20PM
Journalism has NEVER been about truth. Whether state-controlled, or "free", journalism has always been political, with an agenda. The "duty" of a state controlled press, is to preserve and advance the state. The "duty" of a "free" press is to advance the agenda of which ever party has influence with that news source. The other "duty" of any press, is to make a profit, ie, to get those ratings.
My, and your, favorite news outlets are guilty of folding, spindling, and mutilating the truth, routinely. Same is true of our least favorite outlets. OAN, or One America News ranks among my favorites, but I am perfectly aware that they have an agenda, no less than Fox or CNN have their agendas.
Sometimes, I actually have an un-American thought, and wonder if things would really be any worse without our "free press". The Brits and the Canucks seem to be better informed than most of our citizens, without all the lip service to "free press".
Did a search for some examples, and this one is so far over the top, I couldn't resist it: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1174281/ [stormfront.org] Yeah, I know it's not a real news outlet, but still . . . :^)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Monday April 08 2019, @01:47PM
As usual with politics, they have put a reasonable idea up front - "you have to provide the original so people can see when you cherry-pick out of context" - and hidden the unreasonable idea behind it - "... and the government censors get pre-approval."