Should the government regulate "News"

[sarisataka]

Should networks, like Fox, who regularly present false information as "news" face regulation and/or sanction?

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	The FCC should be able to order a network to broadcast a retraction for giving false information as news
	0 (0%)
	The FCC should be able to fine a network for giving false information as news
	0 (0%)
	The FCC should be able to pull a network license for giving false information as news
	0 (0%)
	There should be regulatory standards of truthfulness for a network to earn the right to call themselves "News"
	4 (14%)
	Multiple of the above
	19 (68%)
	The First Amendment prohibits government censorship
	5 (18%)
	The First Amendment prohibits government censorship- but maybe that should change
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[sop]

1. The government should enforce anti-trust laws and break up media ownership consolidation.

[sarisataka]

5. I think the consolidation of news services

Under a handful of owners is a separate, but related problem.

[Initech]

2. Wish we could bring back the Fairness Doctrine!

Though not sure how much good that would do in the age of 24/7 social media news.

[Celerity]

6. the Fairness Doctrine also would not impact cable networks

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. The FD would not apply to the internet,satellite or cable genres, they don't operate on

public airways and the FCC has zero content authority over those genres and there's no FCC license to revoke as there is no license required to operate, as it should be.
And, like you said, it wouldn't do any good anyway, not in todays 24/7 social media.

[onenote]

17. It didn't that much good when it was in effect. Nixon was elected, twice. Reagan was elected, twice.

[ck4829]

3. Pass - "The government", because of our "two-party system", includes Republicans. They can not be trusted to define

what is true/false, what is newsworthy, or what constitutes truthfulness.

[sarisataka]

4. I had not considered

An option of "regulations only in effect/enforceable under Democratic administrations".

I don't know if that is even possible.

[Dave says]

7. It's not, and that's good

[tritsofme]

8. No, all of these "solutions" are antithetical to the First Amendment.

It always amazes me that people would empower Trump or a future Republican president to shut down news outlets he doesn’t like. Pure madness.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. That has been my argument in another thread,

there are those that fail to see that.

[sarisataka]

13. People often do not consider

Foreseeable consequences.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. Oh hell no,

or in stronger terms, FUCK NO, the govt. has no business regulating news, that would be a MAGAt dream come true.

[William769]

12. No.

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2024, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The Amendments to the Constitution were put there for a reason. Our kin that have come before us fought and many of them died for the freedoms that those Amendments give us.

[EllieBC]

14. Well that all depends.

Who is in charge? It’s great to pass laws like this until however many years later the other party gets into control and uses them against you.

[Tree Lady]

15. My thought exactly

who is the government? It needs to be non partisan fairness for both sides and why I voted for the only regulation should be to tell the truth. Just the facts like when I was a kid watching the news.

[TheFarseer]

16. But who decides what is false information?

Those ideas could go very bad.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. "regulatory standards of truthfulness' is a chilling, Putinesque, PRC kind of concept.

Hard pass.