Implement meaningful and compunding fines upon the media for Blatant lies and misrepresentations.
a formula of X +Yn=Z where X is $100k, n is the number of fines, and Y is the previos fine.
so first fine is
$100k + 0(1)= $100k…
second fine is
$100k+$100(2)=$300k…etc.
And outlaw Propaganda, which may solve itself if the deep state control is managed
Thats a limit on free speech. I propose creating a status if it doesn’t already exist for companies that propose to be a source of news or information that is vital to the community. These designated companies that are privately operated receive benefits from being a source and a benefit to the nation however these benefits can be revoked upon the determination of a board that is created to evaluate claims of partisanship or propaganda. I’m sure there’s already something like this that exists I hope anyway
Not a bad idea, but who’s going to decide what are lies and propaganda? Lies might be fairly easy to identify and disprove; however, propaganda is subjective IMO. A lot of people believe Donald Trump is a Nazi and a reincarnated Hitler, and they spread those beliefs loudly and clearly. I think he is a patriot - a man who loves his country and its people. Which of us would be spreading propaganda if we voiced our opinions?
True, to actually enact this you would need logical people based in reality. I’m just looking for a way to never again spread TDS or something worse, at that level, and the way they did by pretended it was “news”
The big question on all of these types of proposals is, who decides? The left has been calling anything they don’t like “Hate Speech”, “Misinformation”, etc. Maybe a panel or board, but it would have to be bi-partisan. They would also have to be unable to be bribed, somehow. Who would have to bear the burden of proof? Who would pay for legal fees? Which shows would be scrutinized?
Maybe, if someone wants to call themselves “NEWS”, only statements of fact with legitimate sources are news. They must have immediate feedback from viewers (like those “pick a star” shows) and if they reach a certain threshold during a segment, they must stop immediately and back up the previous statements with legitimate sources. If there are, say, five headlines/segments, there are five columns across the bottom of the screen in which numbers of dissenters accumulate. If the threshold is reached near the end of the show, the next show cannot begin without citing those legitimate sources and explaining their statements, which also may be scrutinized. After a specified number of viewer shut-downs, their “NEWS” designation is removed and they are fined. To get it back will cost them. Also, if an individual is talking about a news item, there must be someone quoted from an opposing viewpoint.
One problem with that big idea is the “echo-chamber” issue. So many people don’t even know they are being propagandized or gaslit. I, for one, am not going to watch one of the “news” shows just so I can pick out their lies. I find this a prickly issue. Of course, if a station wants to be labeled reliable “NEWS” and it is a costly endeavor, there could be fewer options and, thus, it would be easier to manage.
And once again, the question is what is a legitimate source? I’ll give you two arguments to demonstrate what I mean:
Media Bias/Fact Check rates all these reporting sources as left, left center, least biased, right center, right, and questionable sources. When arguing with someone on the left I always take great pains to find a source to offer them that is either rated left, left center, or least biased. If I offer right center or right, they will not accept my argument. If I do enough digging I can always find a source from their political side that will align with my argument
In this case the source doesn’t prove a thing. Typically I find that I believe whoever agrees with what I want to hear; I think that’s the way most people decide on their source. The problem is that Media Bias/Fact Check’s list of “news” agencies has two to three times the number of left-leaning sources as those that are right-leaning, so that a person on the right who is trying to find actual facts to argue their side has much less access to sources.
There have been several times when I have argued with Perplexity AI because I knew for 100% fact that what it was saying was left-wing BS. Given the true version of the situation, it will realign its comments and even apologize for the mistake, but I’m never convinced that this learning experience has taught it anything because a few inquiries later, I run across another biased result.
What happens is that people who don’t know any better will listen to AI’s answers and believe what it says. Before you know it “sources” don’t mean a thing.
the media lying is not free speech. They use broadcasting licenses with agreements. You can add removing the LIES and propaganda into the license.
I don’t want to see the government impede free speech. But I think they can change some rules for media groups. If you are registered as a News organization, you must give both sides of the issues impartially. If you want to be partisan, you must be registered as an Opinion organization and not News. Programs can have an logo/icon that shows if it is News or Opinion. Parody sites also should have an icon for Parody so that the average un-informed person can glance and see what they are watching.
In the policy I wrote I basically establish it through the use of a very simple set of questions in an audit format that have zero bias or political leaning.
“What was the source of this story?” “Was it disclosed to the public?” “What’s the impact politically and societally from this story coming out? Who does it benefit?”
And then issuing fines based on the advertisers featured that day of programming.
The audit process is designed to be unbiased because all it does is ask for sources. If they can’t be provided or verified then that’s a violation.
The auditors should have a very wide range of beliefs and must work together to ensure the audits are fair and balanced. The auditors need to be public employees and answer to an oversight committee that will hold them accountable for any shift or variation from the balanced standard.