Establish a Federal Media Accountability Commission (FMAC)

Liberty
1

Executive Summary:

This proposal advocates for the creation of a Federal Media Accountability Commission (FMAC) which would oversee the accuracy and source credibility of entertainment news media channels. The initiative aims to ensure that media outlets provide verifiable sources for their stories, thereby fostering a more transparent and accountable press environment. This proposal addresses the balance between freedom of the press and the public’s right to accurate information, drawing parallels with how other constitutional rights, like the Second Amendment, are regulated for public safety and integrity.

Introduction:

The freedom of the press, enshrined in the First Amendment, is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing for a free flow of information and diverse viewpoints. However, the proliferation of misinformation and stories lacking credible sources in entertainment news has raised concerns about the integrity of information, potentially leading to societal and political polarization. This proposal suggests a regulatory framework not to censor, but to ensure accountability in media reporting.

Rationale:

  1. Public Trust in Media:
  • Trust in media is at an all-time low, with many outlets perceived as biased or untrustworthy. A mechanism to verify sources could restore some credibility.
  1. Parallels with Other Rights:
  • Just as the Second Amendment has regulatory measures like background checks and age restrictions, similar accountability can be applied to press freedoms to prevent misinformation without infringing on the core right.
  1. Need for Accountability:
  • The absence of source verification can lead to “informational terrorism,” where baseless or misleading stories can manipulate public opinion, influence elections, or incite unrest.

Proposal Details:

Creation of the FMAC:

  • Purpose: To audit entertainment news media for source credibility and adherence to factual reporting standards.

  • Structure:

    • Composed of a diverse panel of media ethics experts, journalists, legal scholars, and public representatives to avoid bias.

    • Operates under strict guidelines to ensure objectivity and protection of free speech.

Audit Process:

  1. Source Inquiry:
  • Channels must provide verifiable sources for stories upon request by FMAC. If they cannot, the channel faces penalties.
  1. Disclosure to Public:
  • Evaluate whether the sources were adequately disclosed to the viewers or readers, ensuring transparency.
  1. Impact Assessment:
  • Analyze the social and political impact of stories, checking for clear biases that might skew public perception unduly.

Penalties for Non-Compliance:

  • Financial Penalties: Channels unable to provide credible sources are fined an amount equivalent to the revenue generated from advertisements during the segments in question. This financial penalty aims to discourage the broadcasting of unverified or sensationalist content without stifling the essential freedom of the press.

Implementation:

  • Legislation: Would require new federal legislation to establish FMAC, define its powers, and outline the penalty structure.

  • Training and Guidelines:

    • Auditors at FMAC would undergo extensive training on media ethics, law, and source verification techniques. Clear guidelines would be established to ensure consistency and fairness.

  • Appeals Process:

    • Media outlets would have the right to appeal decisions made by FMAC to an independent judicial review body to ensure due process.

Benefits:

  • Enhanced Credibility: Helps restore public trust in media by ensuring stories are based on verifiable facts.

  • Market Correction: Encourages media companies to prioritize factual reporting to avoid financial penalties.

  • Public Education: Increases awareness among the public about the importance of media accountability.

Challenges:

  • First Amendment Concerns: The proposal must carefully navigate constitutional law to avoid being seen as censorship.

  • Potential for Bias: Even with safeguards, there’s a risk of auditors introducing their biases, necessitating rigorous oversight and transparency in FMAC operations.

Conclusion:

While the freedom of the press is inviolable, the public’s right to accurate information is equally critical. This proposal seeks not to undermine journalistic freedom but to promote a culture of accountability in entertainment news media, ensuring that the information disseminated has a foundation in truth, which ultimately strengthens democratic discourse.

2

This is introducing a very slippery slope to grind out 1st Amendment rights. The Commission proposed would be immediately targeted by entities determined to subvert our rights as the ATF has been infiltrated by idealogs attempting to remove 2nd Amendment rights. The Deep State would infest this Commission and subvert it. We do not need another Federal Agency to oversee the media. The marketplace will do that soon enough as true Americans have realized the hateful rhetoric being spewed by the media. Most of the companies are experiencing rapid declines in viewership as well as revenues. A much better idea would be to bann partial or complete ownership in media companies by other companies not directly involved in the media. Also bann media companies from forming conglomerates. Make them all stand alone companies so the impact of their reporting is more immediately felt in the marketplace.

1 Like
3

At its core I totally agree with you. Cause I personally despise advocating for bigger government.

The issue is that too many Americans are targeted by this “informational terrorism” and if the agency could employ their auditing in a simple way such as the 3 questions I provided to examine whether or not the news medium has the verifiable sources to push a narrative or story out, they could then issue fines accordingly.

Because the motivating factor here is ratings > advertising profit.

If we can disrupt the way they profit off their ratings that should inherently improve the method of reporting.

The agency could be held together by a bipartisan group of auditors that will perform their audits following a strict script such as:

“What sources confirm this story?” “were they disclosed to the public” “What’s the impact of this story politically and societally?”

These should be impartial questions that if they can’t be provided then could suggest a fine to the news medium to foster more integrity in their reporting.

I agree slippery slopes are real and totally embrace your concern. But when people say “we can’t regulate the first amendment” I promptly say, “look at what they do to the second amendment.” It’s regulated and infringed to hell.

4

And to give you even more context as to why I think this is necessary.

I personally lost my job due to an altercation with someone who watched too much of a certain news media channel and challenged on why I’d watch the opposite based on my ethnicity.

The effects of this “informational terrorism” create very real tangible tension and friction among Americans. I can’t sue any of those channels for what they did to that man. So if I’m personally/financially affected by their brainwashing on other Americans, why shouldn’t they have to pay for damaging society?

What is my legal recourse to be made whole for having to live my life encountering the product of their subversion and destabilization for profit? Who should be held accountable for this?

5

The last thing we need is another branch of govt to over see freedom of speech. Our current news media is a corporately owned propaganda machine for the elite and globalist. They should have no access to our government press conferences which allows them portray their propaganda as legitimate journalism. What is needed is a simple a direct definition of what is considered journalism and reporting and what is considered propaganda you can have your opinion and you can report what ever you want as long as its factual if you break these simple rules. You lose your press status their a plenty of honest investigative journalist in this world to bring back the integrity to the news we the people digest.

1 Like
6

Trust me, I hate advocating for bigger government too.

But the issue then is, if you kick anyone out for being “fake news” then they cry that it’s unconstitutional because of the whole “free press.”

So there’s gotta be “some” regulation to be able to restrict someone’s press status. By your own suggestion “a simple a direct definition of what is considered journalism and reporting and what is considered propaganda you can have your opinion and you can report what ever you want as long as its factual if you break these simple rules. You lose your press status” and that’s exactly what the FMAC would do.

“Your organization has been posting stories without providing sources and presenting them as facts.” Take: “Trump was pissed on by a hooker in Russia.” I seem to remember that one in 2018 or so.

Then the agency goes:

“What are your sources for this story?” None? Here’s your fine. And that’d be however much Pfizer paid them during that day’s news cycle where that news appeared.

It’d be too easy.

And then that money can be redistributed to > literally anything you want that would benefit America.