Can the world be Fixed?

theprestige said:
You seem to have forgotten that Arth was talking specifically about American media companies regulated by the American government.
Click to expand...

No, but continuing from my post, you're clearly unaware that BBC, Guardian, ABC and even TVNZ (among others) have operations in USA and unless Americans aren't allowed to view non-partisan news, they're perfectly able to see them.

The Beeb even still runs a radio service broadcast worldwide. I realise you have the Gestapo about these days, but they're not likely to pick on you personally, and I doubt listening to the Beeb is heresy just yet.

US-centric thinking is so quaint.
 
Pixel42 said:
There must surely be some way of ensuring there are consequences for claiming to be a reliable news source, whilst actually pumping out blatant lies 24/7. There are libel laws in most countries, for example, it's possible to take a news channel or newspaper to court and prove they lied about an individual and make them pay compensation. Companies can also sue for defamation, like Dominion did with Fox News. It should be possible for supposed news sources which deliberately spread misinformation to be similarly held accountable in a court of law, and fined for doing so. A regulatory body, ideally independent of government, could be set up to do that.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
As much as I hate Fox News, I would strongly oppose any attempt to use the law to shut them down.
You also have the ancient problem of "Who will watch the watchers"? who dedices what is biased and what is not.
Things like Fox News are part of price we pay for free speech.
 
Free speech does not prevent there being consequences for libel and defamation. I'm suggesting there should be similar consequences for the deliberate dissemination of misinformation by news media. Fox News would not be shut down, but it could be prosecuted and fined in a court of law for repeating proven lies, in the same way it was when it repeated Trump's lies about Dominion fixing the 2020 election. The problem is that the plaintiff in such case is essentially "the public interest", so you would need a proxy to stand in for it.
 
Pixel42 said:
Free speech does not prevent there being consequences for libel and defamation. I'm suggesting there should be similar consequences for the deliberate dissemination of misinformation by news media. Fox News would not be shut down, but it could be prosecuted and fined in a court of law for repeating proven lies, in the same way it was when it repeated Trump's lies about Dominion fixing the 2020 election. The problem is that the plaintiff in such case is essentially "the public interest", so you would need a proxy to stand in for it.
Click to expand...

An American who has lived in the UK - London - for over a decade, but this isn't about his citizenship or differences between the UK and the USA, this video starts about how fear about London on the internet has been created, at the end he comes up with some good ideas that doesn't include any idea of criminalisation of promoting misinformation, or preventing folk from posting what they want.

 
Pixel42 said:
Free speech does not prevent there being consequences for libel and defamation. I'm suggesting there should be similar consequences for the deliberate dissemination of misinformation by news media. Fox News would not be shut down, but it could be prosecuted and fined in a court of law for repeating proven lies, in the same way it was when it repeated Trump's lies about Dominion fixing the 2020 election. The problem is that the plaintiff in such case is essentially "the public interest", so you would need a proxy to stand in for it.
Click to expand...
My, goodness. All those "news" organizations that said the Hunter Biden Laptop was Russian disinformation should be fined?
 
arthwollipot said:
Not for the majority of the country it isn't, no.
Click to expand...

OK. There's no point to this I guess.

Imagine this scenario:

A: "This is my political position on X."
B: "Oh! I totally agree with your political position on X."

POOF!!!

A: "What happened? Where did my political position go?"
B: "Oh. My bad. I agreed with it and that made it disappear."

I picked that example, because it was something that was clearly different about the ABC (and to a lesser extent, SBS), that made it clear that those services were, like me, left leaning. (Except in my case, I'm ludicrously far left.)

I don't understand why you can't admit that.
 
novaphile said:
OK. There's no point to this I guess.

Imagine this scenario:

A: "This is my political position on X."
B: "Oh! I totally agree with your political position on X."

POOF!!!

A: "What happened? Where did my political position go?"
B: "Oh. My bad. I agreed with it and that made it disappear."

I picked that example, because it was something that was clearly different about the ABC (and to a lesser extent, SBS), that made it clear that those services were, like me, left leaning. (Except in my case, I'm ludicrously far left.)

I don't understand why you can't admit that.
Click to expand...
It did not disapear. It became a normal part of society. It may have been a political statement to acknowledge the fact that the land was taken from its original inhabitents, now it is standard and very common.

Here is some doco about that. This is from the museum of Sydney. Apologies for the camera shake.
PB014458 by rjh01, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom