Freedom of Speech and Accuracy Standards

[Darth Raptor]

Freedom of speech is never absolute. There are limits. A few comparatively liberal countries have hate speech laws. Even the United States has laws regarding concepts like slander and libel. So watching FOXNews this morning got me thinking. What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets? Like, say, when a news network gets caught in an outright lie, they get fined the fuck out for it; not just issue a microfont correction the next week. There could be allowances made for unreliable information provided they make clear that their figures are shaky. This isn't meant to penalize genuine mistakes, but rather stop Bill O'Reilly and that Reuters Photoshop hack from presenting bald-faced lies. Publications and broadcasts classified as "religion" or "fiction" would be categorically exempt from this, of course (this has the nice bonus of neatly segregating real science from Creationism and other forms of pseudoscience by forcing them to declare themselves as either of the two exempt categories).

There's really only one problem I can see with this. While it would definitely foster far more rigorous fact checking, it might lead to a decline in government scrutiny by the media. Since the government is the one regulating the media, anything a news agency says that runs counter to the official state line could be penalized. Even this could be taken care of by having the regulation run by a politically inert, independent agency, though.

[Darth Wong]

There's no reason it couldn't be done. Free-speech has never been a license to lie; that's why we have laws prohibiting fraud and false advertising. And calling something "news" without making a serious effort to be accurate and factual is false advertising. For that matter, "fair and balanced" is blatant false advertising.

[Hillary]

Freedom of speech is never absolute. There are limits. A few comparatively liberal countries have hate speech laws. Even the United States has laws regarding concepts like slander and libel. So watching FOXNews this morning got me thinking. What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets? Like, say, when a news network gets caught in an outright lie, they get fined the fuck out for it; not just issue a microfont correction the next week. There could be allowances made for unreliable information provided they make clear that their figures are shaky. This isn't meant to penalize genuine mistakes, but rather stop Bill O'Reilly and that Reuters Photoshop hack from presenting bald-faced lies. Publications and broadcasts classified as "religion" or "fiction" would be categorically exempt from this, of course (this has the nice bonus of neatly segregating real science from Creationism and other forms of pseudoscience by forcing them to declare themselves as either of the two exempt categories).

There's really only one problem I can see with this. While it would definitely foster far more rigorous fact checking, it might lead to a decline in government scrutiny by the media. Since the government is the one regulating the media, anything a news agency says that runs counter to the official state line could be penalized. Even this could be taken care of by having the regulation run by a politically inert, independent agency, though.

I once saw a drama over here where an MP puts forward the idea that if a media outlet runs a story with factual errors in it, a retraction/apology for this should be given as much prominence as the original article.

I always liked the idea of this - currently the retraction tends to be tucked away on page 23, even if the original lie was on the front page.

I don't see it limits free speech to clamp down on false reporting. If anything, the public will benefit from better information as the news outlets will have to concentrate on stories that are true, rather than the salacious nonsense we currently have masquerading as news.

[SeeingRed]

What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets? Like, say, when a news network gets caught in an outright lie, they get fined the fuck out for it; not just issue a microfont correction the next week.

The sad thing is, that we even have to talk about having a law mandating factual accuracy. And it doesn't seem like it's a universal thing -- I've never heard of the BBC or Reuters being accused of lying or systemic bias (granted, there was that Reuters photographer who was doctoring photos, but that was probably not an institutional thing like it is at Faux News).

[Lost Soal]

What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets? Like, say, when a news network gets caught in an outright lie, they get fined the fuck out for it; not just issue a microfont correction the next week.

The sad thing is, that we even have to talk about having a law mandating factual accuracy. And it doesn't seem like it's a universal thing -- I've never heard of the BBC or Reuters being accused of lying or systemic bias (granted, there was that Reuters photographer who was doctoring photos, but that was probably not an institutional thing like it is at Faux News).

The bbc has been accused plenty of times of bias, out right sucking up to Labour and helping to drive David Kelly to suicide whilst under Greg Dyke. It may not have gotten much publicity over your way, but theres been quite a lot here.

[Darth Wong]

Accusations of bias are different from accusations of factual error. They are difficult to prove in an objective fashion.

[Lord Woodlouse]

What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets? Like, say, when a news network gets caught in an outright lie, they get fined the fuck out for it; not just issue a microfont correction the next week.

The sad thing is, that we even have to talk about having a law mandating factual accuracy. And it doesn't seem like it's a universal thing -- I've never heard of the BBC or Reuters being accused of lying or systemic bias (granted, there was that Reuters photographer who was doctoring photos, but that was probably not an institutional thing like it is at Faux News).

The bbc has been accused plenty of times of bias, out right sucking up to Labour and helping to drive David Kelly to suicide whilst under Greg Dyke. It may not have gotten much publicity over your way, but theres been quite a lot here.

But the BBC did get held accountable for that accusation. There was an investigation and the BBC management was essentially turned on it's head as a result.

[Lost Soal]

True, I was just correcting SeeingRed since he seemed to believe the bbc were clear from any accusations of bias.

[SeeingRed]

True, I was just correcting SeeingRed since he seemed to believe the bbc were clear from any accusations of bias.

Quite the contrary; even where I live the BBC is often and vehemently condemned for liberal bias, anti-Israel bias, etc. etc. But rarely if ever do I hear the BBC accused of outright lying or dissemination of false information. That's the distinction i was trying to draw.

[Lost Soal]

True, I was just correcting SeeingRed since he seemed to believe the bbc were clear from any accusations of bias.

Quite the contrary; even where I live the BBC is often and vehemently condemned for liberal bias, anti-Israel bias, etc. etc. But rarely if ever do I hear the BBC accused of outright lying or dissemination of false information. That's the distinction i was trying to draw.

Ok, sorry then, I jus t saw you'd included systemic bias as one of the things they'd never been accused of. Which as you see yourself, they have.

[Simplicius]

What's wrong with imposing standards of accuracy and factuality on media outlets?

This is a practical, if philosophical, problem with imposing such a standard, rather than a disagreement with you.

One reason why free speech laws in the US are so broad, and go to such great lengths to prevent a chilling effect on speech - libel law for public figures and the lack of a prohibition on hate speech being prime examples - is because the free exchange of ideas was and is considered to be the most essential right in a functioning free society. The open exchange of ideas was derived from J. S. Mill (correct? I believe the free marketplace of ideas was his, from On Liberty) - directly derived, and often cited by Justice Holmes in free-speech cases. The open marketplace of ideas thus provides the foundation for US free-speech law; central to that is a bare minimum of censorship, and tha bare minimum is what keeps the US' free-speech laws so broad.

This would be fine, except that such a market of ideas needs intelligent people who actively and persuasively debunk the idiots and throw out falsehood. Given that such people do not feature prominently in the US, then, the free-speech laws only accomplish half of what they are supposed to, yet devotion to the ideal prevents the laws from being changed.

[Darth Raptor]

One reason why free speech laws in the US are so broad, and go to such great lengths to prevent a chilling effect on speech - libel law for public figures and the lack of a prohibition on hate speech being prime examples - is because the free exchange of ideas was and is considered to be the most essential right in a functioning free society. The open exchange of ideas was derived from J. S. Mill (correct? I believe the free marketplace of ideas was his, from On Liberty) - directly derived, and often cited by Justice Holmes in free-speech cases. The open marketplace of ideas thus provides the foundation for US free-speech law; central to that is a bare minimum of censorship, and tha bare minimum is what keeps the US' free-speech laws so broad.

Standards of factuality wouldn't impede punditry or opinions unless they deliberately disseminated false information. Bill O'Reilly would still be able to say whatever he wanted, he just wouldn't be able to bolster his opinions with obvious lies (unless he was willing to accurately declare the Factor as a drama or an evangelical sermon).

This would be fine, except that such a market of ideas needs intelligent people who actively and persuasively debunk the idiots and throw out falsehood. Given that such people do not feature prominently in the US, then, the free-speech laws only accomplish half of what they are supposed to, yet devotion to the ideal prevents the laws from being changed.

Even if we had the "crusaders for truth" the Founders were banking on, their efforts would be facilitated by the ban on masquerading fiction as fact. The result would be a marked decline in general asshattery across the board. This seems like a prudent measure regardless, even if we have to sacrifice vague platitudes like a "free marketplace" of ideas. We can agree that total freedom in a real marketplace is a bad idea, correct?

[Shroom Man 777]

To prevent the government from using these standards to bend shit, maybe an international organization could be enacted. Uhh...like an Amnesty International or WHO version for media

Of course, that would make their influence minimal on lesser cases of bullshit (small-time deceitful bastards). But if the bullshit gets too much, like in Faux, then these guys drop the hammer on 'em.

[drachefly]

Those groups you named are benign largely because they wield no real authority. Once they did, would they really seem so harmless?

[Rocker5150]

Here is a frightening Florida decision that should make everyone take notice. When I first read this, I was stunned. It involves a local Fox channel, not the one on cable. No wonder FNC seems to have a license to lie. They actually do.


http://www.projectcensored.org/publicat ... 05/11.html


"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”



-Kevin

[Darth Raptor]

Praise Jesus those dirty words and sinful erogenous zones remain censored, though.

[Simplicius]

Even if we had the "crusaders for truth" the Founders were banking on, their efforts would be facilitated by the ban on masquerading fiction as fact. The result would be a marked decline in general asshattery across the board. This seems like a prudent measure regardless, even if we have to sacrifice vague platitudes like a "free marketplace" of ideas. We can agree that total freedom in a real marketplace is a bad idea, correct?

Oh, I agree with you absolutely - I was merely presenting the reason why such a ban would be difficult to implement in light of common First Amendment interpretation.

[wolveraptor]

The one problem with such a policy would be finding someone with absolutely no stake in what's being reported to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Frankly, I couldn't see the current administration appointing a fair and balanced department head.

[Darth Raptor]

The one problem with such a policy would be finding someone with absolutely no stake in what's being reported to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Frankly, I couldn't see the current administration appointing a fair and balanced department head.

One day, we will all be governed by machines. Perfect, unfeeling machines. But until then, the people who unabashedly do have political axes to grind will be watching the Media Oversight Committee like hawks. Presumably, they would be too busy making damn sure they don't fuck up to exhibit any significant bias.

[wolveraptor]

My main fear was already stated in this thread by someone else; that, in an effort to keep their jobs, people within the Committee would pander to government interests. If there were to be such an organization, they should be like the Supreme Court in that they remain relatively untouched by changing administrations. God forbid they be elected.