Thread: Accountability for misinformation in the media?

This is something that has always bugged me. Do you feel that people such as political pundits (both left and right), talk show hosts (minus those who have comedic shows) and documentary producers (i.e. Michael "Jumbo Jet" Moore) should be accountable for misinforming the masses?

I understand that a large portion of it comes down to putting slight spin on statistics or adding an opinion in that may seem like fact. But the fact is it is more often than not these so called "Informers" spew pure lies as fact, based on ridiculous evidence that is debunked and nothing is done to force them to redact previous statements. This leads to a spread of ignorance in my opinion. For example: (Hypothetically) Let's say Michael Moore decides he wants to make money by talking about how evil Barrack Obama is, and cites someone who claims he once saw barrack punch a baby (I know, just run with it). This goes into his latest film "Steamy brown pile" and millions of people view it and think HOLY SHIT HE PUNCHED A BABY! Two weeks later it turns out the source is an intern who works for Michael Moore who admits to making the whole thing up. Does Michael Moore have to let people know he lied to them? As of now, No. In my opinion there's something inherently wrong with that.

It's only going to get worse with things like twitter being credited as viable sources for news. Take for example the so called "Twitter Revolution" that took place, if you do a little research you'll find the news beefed up the bullshit highly by taking a note from all the tweets coming from "the protesters" On that subject I'd suggest reading this article to give you some perspective on how far off what we get told really is sometimes. Does anyone remember a news report on how they were wrong to listen to twitter? or that their numbers were way off and they made a huge error in reporting? Because I don't.

Thoughts?

That's the sad thing nowadays, you have to filter and assess your news heavily as so much of it is either horrendously biased or a lie. It is much more heavily a factory in the american media than other countries, it is of course a factory in every country but much more so over in the USA. Fear mongering tactics to scare the population so they are much more easily controlled and manipulated.

The saddest thing is that it is the general population that has let it slide into this state, if we hadn't been so gullible in the first place this type of manipulation would never have been so successful so wouldn't be as wide spread. Anyway I think that was a side tracked mini rant rather than answering your question... I will get back on track.

I think that they should be accountable for the information that is portrayed however I think it would be an incredibly hard thing to enforce. Perhaps if they had a license so after a certain amount of points you are then banned from being able to be printed in any kind of media. Realistically though nothing like that will come into effect as it would hinder the money makers ability to make money... and we all know money is what makes the world go around!

I think this is one of those things that in a perfect world it wouldn't happen but sadly in this reality we cant do anything to completely remove it for as long as human nature is the same. The tactics will work against the masses so will be used against it. All you can do is attempt to spread awareness of this simple manipulation for what it is so less and less people are fooled by it and have it abandoned by those who use it for not being effective.

I like the brain stew section, it lets me ramble about random stuff!

I think that because in the past few decades so many things have changed that most people are ready to believe anything else with little surprise. I'm not saying that's a good thing in fact I really think the media should confirm and stick to facts instead of opinion. Or at least say that the following is not proved or just an opinion instead of leading the masses into believing something they're not entirely sure of themselves.

Many European's are horrified by the concept of "freedom of speech" because they have seen the darker side of it (rampant propaganda accepted as truth - fueling psychopathic aims and agendas) and thus are less dazzled by its theoretic appeal.

freedom of speech is what allows people to present entertainment as fact/truth/news. The concept which was originally intended to protect the ability to speak the truth is now protecting system of propaganda.

I am not suggesting that freedom of speech be removed, only that certain types of information (the type presented as fact) could be regulated - maybe wikipedia is a good model for how to organize a factual media outlet (i.e. a news station which can be edited by the population if/when misinformation is discovered, and has some level of protection against "graffiti". ideally though this process would take place before publication - a sort of global crowd-sourced fact check)

Or perhaps someone simply needs to create an independent rating system for all media (like ratings for films) which reveals the agenda/spin/reliability of a particular bit of media.

Really though, people shouldn't be lazy and should actively figure out what is real and not. Complacency is the real issue.

There are plenty of safeguards in place already, in the UK at least. If someone lies about an individual or company in the media they can be sued for libel, which happens fairly frequently, and can be ordered to make a retraction. If they lie about stats or events, they can be brought to heel by media watchdogs, and fined, as well as having to make a retraction, and if it is a popular programme or newspaper, the story of their misreporting will gleefully be picked up by their rivals.

I think people are aware that they should not take things at face value unless it is corroborated by multiple sources.

Documentaries in the UK also have a different style to the US. While you will certainly be able to see which side of the fence the film makers come down on, they will present both sides of the argument.

I think in the US they tend to be very one sided in their approach, Moore being the classic example; regardless of whether you agree with him or not, it comes across as propaganda.

I find the practice of retractions a bit silly actually. Take for example posting on the front page of a major newspaper some article with false or unconfirmed information. That article then fuels talk shows and news broadcasts for a few days and by the time a retraction is made, the damage has been done.

I actually feel that the Internet and 24x7 news stations have made the situation more worse. Everyone is scrambling to get the story out, not the correct one. Take for example these two articles about the a suspect in planting suspicious packages around Washington D.C.

"A law enforcement official speaking on the condition of anonymity said officials found what appeared to be an unknown quantity of ammonium nitrate"

"Officials say the material in the backpack was not ammonium nitrate but there were "inert" suspicious items and products in the bag"

Which is it? Sigh, now I have to either wait a few days to get the real story, sort through different articles to try to vote on which it is, or just let someone spoon feed what they want me to believe.