Would you support stronger regulations for the news media in this country?

SPC Erich Guenther — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:21:18 -0400

I am not proposing direct government monitoring rather have an industry panel of partisan neutral judges determine what news pieces are advocacy journalism and thus carry a label on the TV screen as EDITORIAL CONTENT vs news pieces that are free of it and based on facts only which would be labeled NEWS CONTENT on the TV screen. So I am only advocating a return to the labeling scheme the big three networks used to use in the 1950-1960's era and thats it and as far as it would go. I think it is needed. Because on social media a lot of the folks consuming the media are confused over the news presented in what is a personal opinion or editorial comment vs what is fact. I think if we put this regime back in place it would calm a lot of people down as well as lead to more civic based discussions. The panel determining the labeling would be appointed by the various news channels with the stipulation the panel members be demonstrably neutral in their approach to politics and the news based on their past published works or fields of study. Perhaps later extend this to print journalism.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Mar 21 at 2021 11:58 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:58:17 -0400

SPC Erich Guenther The press considers the First Amendment their passport to write, report or disclose whatever they personally think. If they cannot be honest and unbiased in their reporting, the First Amendment will soon be discarded.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2021 12:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:27:23 -0400

Who would determine the neutrality of the members of the panel?

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Mar 21 at 2021 12:47 PM

LT Brad McInnis — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 12:47:38 -0400

I doubt it would be possible to find any non-partisan people to serve on a panel. Everything is hyper partisan anymore.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2021 1:04 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 13:04:22 -0400

Doubt it would make a shred of difference, most people get their news from memes.

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Mar 21 at 2021 2:51 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 14:51:29 -0400

Absolutely!!! The news must only be the verified truth. Oh wait!!! All of the normal news outlets are already required to speak the truth. It is just Fox Entertainment that lies because it's a --ENTERTAINMENT SOURCE. Truth is not required for them.

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Mar 21 at 2021 2:55 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 14:55:21 -0400

@SPC Guenther. So you would let the Fox (pun absolutely intended) guard the hen house. LOL!! No industry of any sort should ever be allowed to regulate itself. You all saw what the banking industry did under Bush W.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2021 7:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:25:11 -0400

No - because that's going to lead down a dangerous road of government censorship.

If people are too lazy to do research and learn the difference between editorials, op-eds, and what are legit news sources and what are basically blogs, that's on them for being lazy.

The simple fact you said "...if we put this regime back in place..." and used the word "regime" is even more telling.

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Mar 21 at 2021 7:47 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:47:43 -0400

LOL!!! How many of you saw how Jeannine Pirro from Fox couldn't deal with a person who didn't kiss Donnie's rear the other day and just cut him off without allowing him to calmly finish answering the question she asked?? Or did you already conveniently forget it?? We call it fascist Fox for a reason.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 21 at 2021 7:48 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:48:37 -0400

No. The pendulum swings. As people find that their lives and the media cause cognitive dissonance, new information outlets will gain market share. The founding fathers didn't think for a minute that the press would be unbiased. They figured competing view points would cause people to do their own more reasoned opinions.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Mar 22 at 2021 12:38 AM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:38:30 -0400

No. What needs to happen is some good people take up a journalist career and they govern themselves.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 22 at 2021 9:52 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:52:19 -0400

I think I read this book. Plot sounds familiar...

Response by Cpl Benjamin Long made Mar 22 at 2021 11:34 AM

Cpl Benjamin Long — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:34:26 -0400

No... Most news media use outright libel to support personal agendas.. Therefore they are not really news at all

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Mar 22 at 2021 11:52 AM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:52:31 -0400

This word work ONLY voluntarily. We cannot pass regulation to enforce this, because laws of this nature WOULD be government censorship and violate 1A. Even if it is a good idea.

Now... networks doing this VOLUNTARILY, or even in agreement with each other - say the big players (Disney (owns ABC and ESPN, amongst others), NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube?) get together and create a multi-platform panel - each player provides (and pays for) 2 members who collectively review news stories? They create a "stamp of approval," and it requires 90% approval (so one person cannot veto, but still requires near unanimous approval) to earn it. Netwroks can then submit for review and stamp, or run without it (allowing them to maintain "breaking news" coverage and process other quick-turnaround stories).

Something like that COULD work - but they would never go for it.