Discussion:
Free speech cannot be sacrificed to strike fake news
(too old to reply)
wolfbat359
2018-04-06 15:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news

Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?

President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.

So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?



First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.

It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
mg
2018-04-06 17:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news" now
days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined with
editorials, rather than presenting them separately

Here's a "news" item from MSNBC on Chinese tariffs, for example,
that's obviously a combination. In fact, I would say that it's
probably about 80% editorial and 20% news.
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/timeline-of-us-and-china-s-tit-for-tat-tariffs-1204466755504
wolfbat359
2018-04-06 19:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news" now
days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined with
editorials, rather than presenting them separately
Here's a "news" item from MSNBC on Chinese tariffs, for example,
that's obviously a combination. In fact, I would say that it's
probably about 80% editorial and 20% news.
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/timeline-of-us-and-china-s-tit-for-tat-tariffs-1204466755504
I heard a lot of explaining of the consequences of Trump's tariffs on China's goods. One consequence was the costs to American Tariffs! Which Trump has not talked about! A lot of explaining and a few opinion pieces such as calling the president something!
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-06 21:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
Post by mg
Post by wolfbat359
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at
least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the
term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have
taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news.
The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about
Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and
France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social
media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge
to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood
definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news
as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly
or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio
recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or
ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the
accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of
the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law
makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print,
distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication
containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and
imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology
and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing. One of the bedrock principles of Freedom of Speech in the
USA is that we live with speech unworthy of protection in order to make
sure we do not legally proscribe speech worthy of protection.
Post by mg
Here's a "news" item from MSNBC on Chinese tariffs, for example,
that's obviously a combination. In fact, I would say that it's
probably about 80% editorial and 20% news.
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/timeline-of-us-and-china-s-tit-for-tat-tariffs-1204466755504
El Castor
2018-04-07 15:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by mg
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
Post by mg
Post by wolfbat359
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at
least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the
term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have
taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news.
The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about
Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and
France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social
media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge
to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood
definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news
as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly
or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio
recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or
ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the
accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of
the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law
makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print,
distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication
containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and
imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology
and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing. One of the bedrock principles of Freedom of Speech in the
USA is that we live with speech unworthy of protection in order to make
sure we do not legally proscribe speech worthy of protection.
Yes!
Post by wolfbat359
Post by mg
Here's a "news" item from MSNBC on Chinese tariffs, for example,
that's obviously a combination. In fact, I would say that it's
probably about 80% editorial and 20% news.
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/timeline-of-us-and-china-s-tit-for-tat-tariffs-1204466755504
mg
2018-04-08 01:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by mg
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
I've heard the news media called the "fourth branch of government".
Democracy requires an honest new media system.


----------------------------------
A properly functioning democracy
depends on an informed electorate.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Post by wolfbat359
Post by mg
Post by wolfbat359
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at
least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the
term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have
taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news.
The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about
Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and
France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social
media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge
to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood
definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news
as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly
or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio
recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or
ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the
accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of
the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law
makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print,
distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication
containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and
imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology
and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.


-------------------------------------
"Opinion is a fitting thing but truth
outlasts the sun - if then we cannot
own them both, possess the oldest one."
--Emily Dickinson
Post by wolfbat359
One of the bedrock principles of Freedom of Speech in the
USA is that we live with speech unworthy of protection in order to make
sure we do not legally proscribe speech worthy of protection.
Post by mg
Here's a "news" item from MSNBC on Chinese tariffs, for example,
that's obviously a combination. In fact, I would say that it's
probably about 80% editorial and 20% news.
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/timeline-of-us-and-china-s-tit-for-tat-tariffs-1204466755504
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-08 03:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
mg
2018-04-08 05:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.

The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.

In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.

In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
El Castor
2018-04-08 08:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
mg
2018-04-08 14:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Some news outlets already label their stuff:

Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
isn't labeled as being "opinion", or editorial:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html

Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 16:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
One reason for getting out of Syria might be that it isn't our
country, though that argument rarely carries much weight in
Washington DC.
mg
2018-04-09 00:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
One reason for getting out of Syria might be that it isn't our
country, though that argument rarely carries much weight in
Washington DC.
Our presence there is obviously illegal and Obama has said so:

"And the issue that obviously I've wrestled with for the last five
years -- how involved should the United States be? What are our legal
constraints in such involvement? What are our moral obligations? What
are our strategic interests? Those haven't changed. I continue to
believe that we did not have a legal basis for military intervention
there . . ."
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru
El Castor
2018-04-08 20:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
mg
2018-04-09 01:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:32:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
I think most everyone agrees with freedom of the press, but creating a
news media monopoly and then treating the MSM like sacred cows, or
primadonnas, is a recipe for disaster and the suicide of democratic
government.



-------------------------------------
The United States is now an oligarchy
in which unlimited political bribery
has created a complete subversion of
our political system as a payoff to
major contributors.
--Jimmy Carter
El Castor
2018-04-09 09:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:32:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
I think most everyone agrees with freedom of the press, but creating a
news media monopoly and then treating the MSM like sacred cows, or
primadonnas, is a recipe for disaster and the suicide of democratic
government.
What monopoly?
mg
2018-04-09 10:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 02:10:52 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:32:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
I think most everyone agrees with freedom of the press, but creating a
news media monopoly and then treating the MSM like sacred cows, or
primadonnas, is a recipe for disaster and the suicide of democratic
government.
What monopoly?
"Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Has Not Been Good For Our
Democracy

The media has become controlled by a handful of corporations thanks to
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

BY MICHAEL CORCORAN | MARCH 30, 2016

This post originally appeared at Truthout.

Wall Street’s sinister influence on the political process has,
rightly, been a major topic during this presidential campaign. But
history has taught us that the role that the media industry plays in
Washington poses a comparable threat to our democracy. Yet this is a
topic rarely discussed by the dominant media, or on the campaign
trail.

But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty
years ago last month, President Bill Clinton signed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February
8, 1996, was “essentially bought and paid for by corporate media
lobbies,” as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it,
and radically “opened the floodgates on mergers.”

The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which
was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934,
according to media scholar Robert McChesney, “is widely considered to
be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this
generation.” The act dramatically reduced important Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and
allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across
the country, increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in
the United States and around the world.

“Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few,” said Eduardo
Galeano, the Latin-American journalist, in response to the act.

Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is
undeniable: About 90 percent of the country’s major media companies
are owned by six corporations. Bill Clinton’s legacy in empowering the
consolidation of corporate media is right up there with the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and welfare reform, as being
among the most tragic and destructive policies of his administration.
. . ."
http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/
mg
2018-04-09 10:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 02:10:52 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:32:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
I think most everyone agrees with freedom of the press, but creating a
news media monopoly and then treating the MSM like sacred cows, or
primadonnas, is a recipe for disaster and the suicide of democratic
government.
What monopoly?
Book Review on The Media Monopoly, Fifth Edition

By: Marianne Gyssels, AGS 4860

Make-Up Assignment for Absences

Introduction

In this report I am going to review the book, The Media Monopoly, the
fifth edition. This book was written by Ben H. Bagdikian, who is a
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and dean emeritus of the Graduate
School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.
Bagdikian originally published this book in 1983 to warn the public
about the negative impacts that corporate ownership and mass
advertising have on the media.

The book is an enlightening exploration of the social and political
ramifications of the declining number of corporations in control of
America’s major media. Bagdikian takes his readers on a frightening
historical journey which illustrates the problems caused by the vast
changes which have occurred in media ownership. I found myself both
enlightened and frightened by this book, which is summarized below.

Summary of the Book

The basic message of The Media Monopoly, is that Americans receive
extremely biased news and information from today’s mass media. Often,
the public doesn’t receive any information at all about key events
which are definitely news. There are two key reasons for this serious
lack of honest and open news reporting.

The first reason is that there have been so many mergers and
acquisitions in the media industry that, today, fewer than ten
corporations control America’s newspapers, books, magazines, movies,
television and radio (p. xiii). That means the public is only exposed
to the viewpoints and opinions of ten corporations. Any news or
information that doesn’t fit with the attitudes, values or revenue
goals of those ten corporations doesn’t get exposure in their media
venues. Also, any information that is damaging to them or to another
large corporation that they sympathize with, may be repressed or given
so little exposure that the public doesn’t even notice it. . . ."
http://drnissani.net/MNISSANI/MEDIA/Bagrev2.htm
https://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapters/dp/0807061875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523268257&sr=8-1&keywords=the+media+monopoly

Also:
http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/
El Castor
2018-04-10 08:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 02:10:52 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 13:32:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
Here's an article from CNN that is clearly an editorial piece that
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/trump-russia-syria/index.html
Here's an article from the Washington Post that is an editorial piece
and is clearly labeled as "Opinion".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/03/30/in-syria-we-took-the-oil-now-trump-wants-to-give-it-to-iran/?utm_term=.5e610abf7449
They are perfectly free to label it however they wish -- that is their
right. What we DO NOT need is a government truth bureau labeling it
for them or punishing them if the bureau deems it to be incorrectly
labeled.
I think most everyone agrees with freedom of the press, but creating a
news media monopoly and then treating the MSM like sacred cows, or
primadonnas, is a recipe for disaster and the suicide of democratic
government.
What monopoly?
Book Review on The Media Monopoly, Fifth Edition
By: Marianne Gyssels, AGS 4860
Make-Up Assignment for Absences
Introduction
In this report I am going to review the book, The Media Monopoly, the
fifth edition. This book was written by Ben H. Bagdikian, who is a
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and dean emeritus of the Graduate
School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.
Bagdikian originally published this book in 1983 to warn the public
about the negative impacts that corporate ownership and mass
advertising have on the media.
The book is an enlightening exploration of the social and political
ramifications of the declining number of corporations in control of
America’s major media. Bagdikian takes his readers on a frightening
historical journey which illustrates the problems caused by the vast
changes which have occurred in media ownership. I found myself both
enlightened and frightened by this book, which is summarized below.
Summary of the Book
The basic message of The Media Monopoly, is that Americans receive
extremely biased news and information from today’s mass media. Often,
the public doesn’t receive any information at all about key events
which are definitely news. There are two key reasons for this serious
lack of honest and open news reporting.
The first reason is that there have been so many mergers and
acquisitions in the media industry that, today, fewer than ten
corporations control America’s newspapers, books, magazines, movies,
television and radio (p. xiii). That means the public is only exposed
to the viewpoints and opinions of ten corporations. Any news or
information that doesn’t fit with the attitudes, values or revenue
goals of those ten corporations doesn’t get exposure in their media
venues. Also, any information that is damaging to them or to another
large corporation that they sympathize with, may be repressed or given
so little exposure that the public doesn’t even notice it. . . ."
http://drnissani.net/MNISSANI/MEDIA/Bagrev2.htm
https://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapters/dp/0807061875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523268257&sr=8-1&keywords=the+media+monopoly
http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/
Political radio has always leaned right, and still does. Newspapers
are folding their tent. People get their news increasingly from the
Internet, where there are more choices than you and I will ever
experience. Spend your days scouring the Russia Today web site.
Personally I still watch Fox news, listen to conservative talk radio,
and visit Drudge at least once a day. Take your pick. Sorry if the
news isn't 24X7 Werner's gloom and doom, but if that's what you want,
it's out there -- more than at any time in history. Here's one for
you. Enjoy!
https://www.gloomboomdoom.com/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-08 16:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
I wouldn't go that far. For example, I'm OK with mandatory labeling on
food products in some cases.
El Castor
2018-04-08 21:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
I wouldn't go that far. For example, I'm OK with mandatory labeling on
food products in some cases.
There is a big leap from government requiring labels describing the
cotents of a can to government requiring the kind of labels you
describe. Remember the "Fairness Doctrine"? You good with that?
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-09 01:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
When Josh has something to say about free speech, I suggest you just
listen and learn. Any suggestion that the government regulate speech
with mandatory labels just puts us one step closer to Venezuela.
I wouldn't go that far. For example, I'm OK with mandatory labeling on
food products in some cases.
Around here we have two ladies selling tamales at a swap meet. They hide in the shadows to avoid the security people. A license to sell home cooked food is expensive so they sell underground. But they have the best tamales in town. I had one for breakfast.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-08 16:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
mg
2018-04-09 00:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.

Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.

In regard to newspapers, I personally would not make a headline out of
an editorial simply because it seems silly. However, they could put it
anywhere they want as long as it is clearly designated.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 04:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
Post by mg
In regard to newspapers, I personally would not make a headline out of
an editorial simply because it seems silly. However, they could put it
anywhere they want as long as it is clearly designated.
mg
2018-04-09 10:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
In regard to newspapers, I personally would not make a headline out of
an editorial simply because it seems silly. However, they could put it
anywhere they want as long as it is clearly designated.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 15:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Any article on Page 1 of the New York Times.
mg
2018-04-09 20:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Any article on Page 1 of the New York Times.
News is news no matter where it's at, or where it comes from. Opinion
is opinion no matter where it's at, or where it come from. “Opinions
are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink”,
as the old saying goes. A newspaper can put opinion and news articles
anywhere it wants. However, editorial opinion is typically put on the
editorial page and should not be mixed with articles that are
purported to be news.

As far as front-page articles go, as they exist today, I haven't
subscribed to a newspaper in decades and don't subscribe to the New
York Times. So, I don't know how polluted their news articles are with
editorial opinion, either on the front page, or any where else in
their 'news'paper. However, after about 35 years of deregulation and
acquisition, and corruption, I would guess newspapers now days do
anything they want and mix opinion and news together routinely and I
would bet that getting them separated would be difficult, but the
longer we let the situation go, the harder it will most likely be.

Take for example this New York Times front-page article that appears
on the referenced sites below. The first sentence of the article
contains the phrase "the two biggest drains on the federal government
— Social Security and Medicare". That's an opinion statement and,
incidentally, it's not a true statement. First of all, it is wrong to
describe Social Security as a program that drains the federal
government. Social Security is self funding and can only spend money
raised through payroll taxes, so it's obviously not a drain on the
rest of the budget unless congress changes the law. Also, it's
obviously inaccurate to say they are the two biggest drains". My guess
is that Defense Department spending is probably bigger than Medicare
spending.
Loading Image...&exph=757&expw=1109&q=new+york+times+trump&simid=608018662381259491&selectedIndex=251&ajaxhist=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 21:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Any article on Page 1 of the New York Times.
News is news no matter where it's at, or where it comes from. Opinion
is opinion no matter where it's at, or where it come from. “Opinions
are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink”,
as the old saying goes. A newspaper can put opinion and news articles
anywhere it wants. However, editorial opinion is typically put on the
editorial page and should not be mixed with articles that are
purported to be news.
As far as front-page articles go, as they exist today, I haven't
subscribed to a newspaper in decades and don't subscribe to the New
York Times. So, I don't know how polluted their news articles are with
editorial opinion, either on the front page, or any where else in
their 'news'paper. However, after about 35 years of deregulation and
acquisition, and corruption, I would guess newspapers now days do
anything they want and mix opinion and news together routinely and I
would bet that getting them separated would be difficult, but the
longer we let the situation go, the harder it will most likely be.
Take for example this New York Times front-page article that appears
on the referenced sites below. The first sentence of the article
contains the phrase "the two biggest drains on the federal government
— Social Security and Medicare". That's an opinion statement and,
incidentally, it's not a true statement. First of all, it is wrong to
describe Social Security as a program that drains the federal
government. Social Security is self funding and can only spend money
raised through payroll taxes, so it's obviously not a drain on the
rest of the budget unless congress changes the law. Also, it's
obviously inaccurate to say they are the two biggest drains". My guess
is that Defense Department spending is probably bigger than Medicare
spending.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=NzNjFrxl&id=7DEF1A696D64BCE7B2E8BDB94BAE48C552B4B629&thid=OIP.NzNjFrxl0eOhFiwHF3Vq8gHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ffair.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fNYTClashOverIdeology.png&exph=757&expw=1109&q=new+york+times+trump&simid=608018662381259491&selectedIndex=251&ajaxhist=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html
Can you provide a link to any actual article (not a hypothetical as you
gave above) or reference to any actual newscast (again, no
hypotheticals) - past or present - that would qualify as "news" in your law?
mg
2018-05-21 15:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Any article on Page 1 of the New York Times.
News is news no matter where it's at, or where it comes from. Opinion
is opinion no matter where it's at, or where it come from. “Opinions
are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink”,
as the old saying goes. A newspaper can put opinion and news articles
anywhere it wants. However, editorial opinion is typically put on the
editorial page and should not be mixed with articles that are
purported to be news.
As far as front-page articles go, as they exist today, I haven't
subscribed to a newspaper in decades and don't subscribe to the New
York Times. So, I don't know how polluted their news articles are with
editorial opinion, either on the front page, or any where else in
their 'news'paper. However, after about 35 years of deregulation and
acquisition, and corruption, I would guess newspapers now days do
anything they want and mix opinion and news together routinely and I
would bet that getting them separated would be difficult, but the
longer we let the situation go, the harder it will most likely be.
Take for example this New York Times front-page article that appears
on the referenced sites below. The first sentence of the article
contains the phrase "the two biggest drains on the federal government
— Social Security and Medicare". That's an opinion statement and,
incidentally, it's not a true statement. First of all, it is wrong to
describe Social Security as a program that drains the federal
government. Social Security is self funding and can only spend money
raised through payroll taxes, so it's obviously not a drain on the
rest of the budget unless congress changes the law. Also, it's
obviously inaccurate to say they are the two biggest drains". My guess
is that Defense Department spending is probably bigger than Medicare
spending.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=NzNjFrxl&id=7DEF1A696D64BCE7B2E8BDB94BAE48C552B4B629&thid=OIP.NzNjFrxl0eOhFiwHF3Vq8gHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ffair.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fNYTClashOverIdeology.png&exph=757&expw=1109&q=new+york+times+trump&simid=608018662381259491&selectedIndex=251&ajaxhist=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html
Can you provide a link to any actual article (not a hypothetical as you
gave above) or reference to any actual newscast (again, no
hypotheticals) - past or present - that would qualify as "news" in your law?
Without actually doing a survey, I would guess that almost any AP news
item would qualify. Here's one about Bernie Sanders announcing his
re-election bid, for instance.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/21/us/ap-us-sanders-re-election.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Faponline-news&action=click&contentCollection=news&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

Most local newspapers and most local TV news shows are probably honest
about separating news and opinion, but I haven't actually done any
research on the subject. Here's some examples of some local news items
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019072/texas-shooting-suspect-exchanged-a-lot-of-fire-with-police.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/KSL5TV

Can you find any examples of AP news stories, or of local TV news
shows, that appear to have the reporter's opinion mixed in with the
news?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-21 16:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
News is news no matter where it's at, or where it comes from. Opinion
is opinion no matter where it's at, or where it come from. “Opinions
are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink”,
as the old saying goes. A newspaper can put opinion and news articles
anywhere it wants. However, editorial opinion is typically put on the
editorial page and should not be mixed with articles that are
purported to be news.
As far as front-page articles go, as they exist today, I haven't
subscribed to a newspaper in decades and don't subscribe to the New
York Times. So, I don't know how polluted their news articles are with
editorial opinion, either on the front page, or any where else in
their 'news'paper. However, after about 35 years of deregulation and
acquisition, and corruption, I would guess newspapers now days do
anything they want and mix opinion and news together routinely and I
would bet that getting them separated would be difficult, but the
longer we let the situation go, the harder it will most likely be.
Take for example this New York Times front-page article that appears
on the referenced sites below. The first sentence of the article
contains the phrase "the two biggest drains on the federal government
— Social Security and Medicare". That's an opinion statement and,
incidentally, it's not a true statement. First of all, it is wrong to
describe Social Security as a program that drains the federal
government. Social Security is self funding and can only spend money
raised through payroll taxes, so it's obviously not a drain on the
rest of the budget unless congress changes the law. Also, it's
obviously inaccurate to say they are the two biggest drains". My guess
is that Defense Department spending is probably bigger than Medicare
spending.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=NzNjFrxl&id=7DEF1A696D64BCE7B2E8BDB94BAE48C552B4B629&thid=OIP.NzNjFrxl0eOhFiwHF3Vq8gHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ffair.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fNYTClashOverIdeology.png&exph=757&expw=1109&q=new+york+times+trump&simid=608018662381259491&selectedIndex=251&ajaxhist=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html
Can you provide a link to any actual article (not a hypothetical as you
gave above) or reference to any actual newscast (again, no
hypotheticals) - past or present - that would qualify as "news" in your law?
Without actually doing a survey, I would guess that almost any AP news
item would qualify. Here's one about Bernie Sanders announcing his
re-election bid, for instance.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/21/us/ap-us-sanders-re-election.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Faponline-news&action=click&contentCollection=news&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
"Sanders is credited with starting a national movement when he
challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination" sounds like it could be an opinion to me.
Post by mg
Most local newspapers and most local TV news shows are probably honest
about separating news and opinion, but I haven't actually done any
research on the subject. Here's some examples of some local news items
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019072/texas-shooting-suspect-exchanged-a-lot-of-fire-with-police.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/KSL5TV
Perhaps an article that lists facts of an event passes muster, but if
that is your standard, then the "news" will be very, very short.

And even when listing facts, is it "opinion" when the author chooses
which facts to include and which to omit? For example, the article
concluded with "The school's grief was on display at an evening baseball
game where Santa Fe players had crosses painted on their faces and the
initials of shooting victims written on tape around their wrists."
Would it be "opinion" to have left that fact out? Is it an "opinion" to
include it?
Post by mg
Can you find any examples of AP news stories, or of local TV news
shows, that appear to have the reporter's opinion mixed in with the
news?
Assuming your standard is anything that goes beyond a simple listing of
facts: https://tinyurl.com/yc5554em ("Trump’s demand puts further
pressure on the Justice Department").
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-21 16:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
To a large extent, it's a truth-in-labeling problem. If I was in
charge, I would start off by requiring news organizations to clearly
label their product as being either editorial or news. Most "news"
now days is probably editorial, or a combination of news combined
with editorials, rather than presenting them separately
The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the government to
be enforcing.
Telling the difference between editorials and news is extremely
simple, at least in most cases. I'll bet a teenager could be taught
how to do it.
What criteria should we use for distinguishing between news and editorials?
I would leave that to the lawyers. However, it would essentially say
that the media is required to label opinions as editorials and news
events, as they actually happen, without editorial comment, as news.
Without criteria, we can't assess whether it so easy to tell the
difference between news and opinion that a teenager could do it. Can
you give examples of current things that qualify as news?
Example news item: An automobile accident occurred yesterday.
Example editorial: An automobile accident occurred yesterday. There
was a tube of lipstick on the seat indicating that the driver might
have been putting on her makeup at the time.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
The type violation where someone tells a bald-faced, premeditated lie,
or deliberately misleads the reader, btw, could be difficult, if not
impossible to detect, at least immediately, but that type of violation
wouldn't be covered by the truth in labeling law since that wouldn't
fit in either category.
In other words, the truth in labeling law, wouldn't be a law against
lying. it would merely be a law against mislabeling.
In the meantime, it's possible of course that I'm missing something.
Can you give an example of a case where it's difficult to distinguish
between a news item and an editorial?
Where would you place the major broadcast networks' nightly newscasts or
the front page stories in the New York Times?
They can put them wherever they want as long as the editorial material
is clearly designated as such. Personally, though, I think it ought to
go before the new, or after the news, or in an entirely different
show, rather than being put in the middle of a newscast.
When I said "place", I meant to get your opinion as to whether the
nightly news and NY Times cover page articles - as they exist today -
would be considered "news" or "editorials" under your law?
What's a "cover page article"?
Any article on Page 1 of the New York Times.
News is news no matter where it's at, or where it comes from. Opinion
is opinion no matter where it's at, or where it come from. “Opinions
are like assholes, everyone has one but they think each others stink”,
as the old saying goes. A newspaper can put opinion and news articles
anywhere it wants. However, editorial opinion is typically put on the
editorial page and should not be mixed with articles that are
purported to be news.
As far as front-page articles go, as they exist today, I haven't
subscribed to a newspaper in decades and don't subscribe to the New
York Times. So, I don't know how polluted their news articles are with
editorial opinion, either on the front page, or any where else in
their 'news'paper. However, after about 35 years of deregulation and
acquisition, and corruption, I would guess newspapers now days do
anything they want and mix opinion and news together routinely and I
would bet that getting them separated would be difficult, but the
longer we let the situation go, the harder it will most likely be.
Take for example this New York Times front-page article that appears
on the referenced sites below. The first sentence of the article
contains the phrase "the two biggest drains on the federal government
— Social Security and Medicare". That's an opinion statement and,
incidentally, it's not a true statement. First of all, it is wrong to
describe Social Security as a program that drains the federal
government. Social Security is self funding and can only spend money
raised through payroll taxes, so it's obviously not a drain on the
rest of the budget unless congress changes the law. Also, it's
obviously inaccurate to say they are the two biggest drains". My guess
is that Defense Department spending is probably bigger than Medicare
spending.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=NzNjFrxl&id=7DEF1A696D64BCE7B2E8BDB94BAE48C552B4B629&thid=OIP.NzNjFrxl0eOhFiwHF3Vq8gHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ffair.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2fNYTClashOverIdeology.png&exph=757&expw=1109&q=new+york+times+trump&simid=608018662381259491&selectedIndex=251&ajaxhist=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html
Can you provide a link to any actual article (not a hypothetical as you
gave above) or reference to any actual newscast (again, no
hypotheticals) - past or present - that would qualify as "news" in your law?
Josh should be paying you at least minimum wage.
Post by mg
Without actually doing a survey, I would guess that almost any AP news
item would qualify. Here's one about Bernie Sanders announcing his
re-election bid, for instance.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/21/us/ap-us-sanders-re-election.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Faponline-news&action=click&contentCollection=news&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
Most local newspapers and most local TV news shows are probably honest
about separating news and opinion, but I haven't actually done any
research on the subject. Here's some examples of some local news items
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019072/texas-shooting-suspect-exchanged-a-lot-of-fire-with-police.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/KSL5TV
Can you find any examples of AP news stories, or of local TV news
shows, that appear to have the reporter's opinion mixed in with the
news?
Nice turnabout! I wonder if you'll get an answer.

islander
2018-04-07 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
El Castor
2018-04-07 15:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
"Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world
consequences"
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html

"Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and 'Biggest Nothing
Burger Ever'"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557

"Hillary Clinton: Fake News Is Now Putting Lives at Risk"
http://www.newser.com/story/235227/hillary-clinton-fake-news-is-now-putting-lives-at-risk.html

And where was Obama when the Russians were pushing false news on
FaceBook?
islander
2018-04-07 18:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
"Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world
consequences"
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html
"Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and 'Biggest Nothing
Burger Ever'"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557
"Hillary Clinton: Fake News Is Now Putting Lives at Risk"
http://www.newser.com/story/235227/hillary-clinton-fake-news-is-now-putting-lives-at-risk.html
And where was Obama when the Russians were pushing false news on
FaceBook?
There you go again!
El Castor
2018-04-08 07:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
"Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world
consequences"
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html
"Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and 'Biggest Nothing
Burger Ever'"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557
"Hillary Clinton: Fake News Is Now Putting Lives at Risk"
http://www.newser.com/story/235227/hillary-clinton-fake-news-is-now-putting-lives-at-risk.html
And where was Obama when the Russians were pushing false news on
FaceBook?
There you go again!
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...

Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing. One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."

Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
islander
2018-04-08 13:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
"Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world
consequences"
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html
"Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and 'Biggest Nothing
Burger Ever'"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557
"Hillary Clinton: Fake News Is Now Putting Lives at Risk"
http://www.newser.com/story/235227/hillary-clinton-fake-news-is-now-putting-lives-at-risk.html
And where was Obama when the Russians were pushing false news on
FaceBook?
There you go again!
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing. One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce. There are some issues about
the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however. I dislike Fox
News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right. What bothered me
immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found that Fox News
was the only news available in the hotel where I stayed. That is a
business decision and I don't think that one news organization should be
allowed to dominate the market. Likewise, I worry a lot about the
effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate what is reported in local
news at stations that they own. In those scenarios it is too dangerous
to risk allowing anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market. That
is not a free press IMV. Generally, I wish that we could find a way to
make news media immune from economic pressure. Turning news programs
into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.

When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for corruption.
The laws against this are much too weak. Personally, I think that it is
much too easy for anonymous money to influence elections. Should
Facebook, Twitter, or other social media be allowed to sell access to
their customers data? This goes beyond politics and is fundamentally
against what the developers of the Internet intended. I have long
opposed push advertising as did the early developers.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-08 16:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some issues about
the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however.  I dislike Fox
News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right.  What bothered me
immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found that Fox News
was the only news available in the hotel where I stayed.  That is a
business decision and I don't think that one news organization should be
allowed to dominate the market.  Likewise, I worry a lot about the
effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate what is reported in local
news at stations that they own.  In those scenarios it is too dangerous
to risk allowing anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market.  That
is not a free press IMV.  Generally, I wish that we could find a way to
make news media immune from economic pressure.  Turning news programs
into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus? We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for corruption.
The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have been
wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is
much too easy for anonymous money to influence elections.  Should
Facebook, Twitter, or other social media be allowed to sell access to
their customers data?  This goes beyond politics and is fundamentally
against what the developers of the Internet intended.  I have long
opposed push advertising as did the early developers.
islander
2018-04-09 01:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some issues
about the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however.  I
dislike Fox News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right.  What
bothered me immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found
that Fox News was the only news available in the hotel where I
stayed.  That is a business decision and I don't think that one news
organization should be allowed to dominate the market.  Likewise, I
worry a lot about the effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate what
is reported in local news at stations that they own.  In those
scenarios it is too dangerous to risk allowing anyone to own exclusive
rights to a media market.  That is not a free press IMV.  Generally, I
wish that we could find a way to make news media immune from economic
pressure.  Turning news programs into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus?  We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for corruption.
The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have been
wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is much too easy for anonymous money to
influence elections.  Should Facebook, Twitter, or other social media
be allowed to sell access to their customers data?  This goes beyond
politics and is fundamentally against what the developers of the
Internet intended.  I have long opposed push advertising as did the
early developers.
The Internet has definitely changed the calculus, but not in a good way.
People search for information that confirms their bias and that is
easy to find, no matter how crazy you are. Sadly, education has not
kept up with the barrage of material increasingly pushed at you on the
Internet.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 04:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some issues
about the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however.  I
dislike Fox News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right.  What
bothered me immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found
that Fox News was the only news available in the hotel where I
stayed.  That is a business decision and I don't think that one news
organization should be allowed to dominate the market.  Likewise, I
worry a lot about the effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate what
is reported in local news at stations that they own.  In those
scenarios it is too dangerous to risk allowing anyone to own
exclusive rights to a media market.  That is not a free press IMV.
Generally, I wish that we could find a way to make news media immune
from economic pressure.  Turning news programs into profit centers
was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus?  We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for corruption.
The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have been
wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is much too easy for anonymous money to
influence elections.  Should Facebook, Twitter, or other social media
be allowed to sell access to their customers data?  This goes beyond
politics and is fundamentally against what the developers of the
Internet intended.  I have long opposed push advertising as did the
early developers.
The Internet has definitely changed the calculus, but not in a good way.
 People search for information that confirms their bias and that is
easy to find, no matter how crazy you are.  Sadly, education has not
kept up with the barrage of material increasingly pushed at you on the
Internet.
Could be, but that is besides my point about a possible positive impact
of the Internet. Perhaps thanks to the Internet, it's impossible for
anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market because the Internet
has done away with the concept of such a closed off market.
islander
2018-04-09 13:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some issues
about the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however.  I
dislike Fox News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right.  What
bothered me immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found
that Fox News was the only news available in the hotel where I
stayed.  That is a business decision and I don't think that one news
organization should be allowed to dominate the market.  Likewise, I
worry a lot about the effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate
what is reported in local news at stations that they own.  In those
scenarios it is too dangerous to risk allowing anyone to own
exclusive rights to a media market.  That is not a free press IMV.
Generally, I wish that we could find a way to make news media immune
from economic pressure.  Turning news programs into profit centers
was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus?  We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for
corruption. The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have
been wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is much too easy for anonymous money to
influence elections.  Should Facebook, Twitter, or other social
media be allowed to sell access to their customers data?  This goes
beyond politics and is fundamentally against what the developers of
the Internet intended.  I have long opposed push advertising as did
the early developers.
The Internet has definitely changed the calculus, but not in a good
way.   People search for information that confirms their bias and that
is easy to find, no matter how crazy you are.  Sadly, education has
not kept up with the barrage of material increasingly pushed at you on
the Internet.
Could be, but that is besides my point about a possible positive impact
of the Internet.  Perhaps thanks to the Internet, it's impossible for
anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market because the Internet
has done away with the concept of such a closed off market.
You and I have disagreed before on the danger of well funded marketing,
especially in think tanks that have a political motive. I have believed
for a long time that they can be very dangerous and have cited examples
of organizations that exist only to shape public opinion in a way that
benefits their owners financially. I have seen them gain the appearance
of respectability in universities, even creating journals that promote
their agenda.

We have now seen how popular platforms on the Internet serve the same
purpose. Microsoft put in place a mechanism for gathering profile
information about their users that they then sold to clients along with
tools for accessing and using that data. We have recently seen where
Cambridge Analytica was able to use psychographic profiles of Americans
to target messages for the Trump campaign in a way that is questionably
illegal or at least not completely above board for users who were not
aware that they were setting themselves up to be targeted. It is
claimed by the Justice Department that the Internet Research Agency in
St. Petersburg used this approach with Microsoft to intentionally sew
disruption in the 2016 election. I've mentioned here before that I
noticed this in my own news feed in Facebook.

I doubt that this is unique to Facebook. If you follow the hottest
topic in the field right now, you may have noticed all the papers that
are being published on "big data." Perhaps you have seen that when you
search for something on Amazon or Google that products which you were
looking for "chase you all over the Internet" as Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
commented in an interview on "Revolution" last week. He also argued in
that interview that using your customer's data in that way was not moral
and that Apple had specifically chosen to not do it. Still, Apple is an
enabler in the form of their Apps store and I wonder how carefully they
are screening before they release a new App. Susan Landau, a
cybersecurity expert at Tufts claims that the Apps are full of holes.

Perhaps this is just an unwanted invasion of my privacy, but I think
that it is more likely a frightening aspect of the Internet that seems
more like *1984* than the servant that we all believed the Internet
would be - and I say that as someone who participated in that development.

When does free speech become public manipulation? I don't know, but I
also suspect the motives of some organizations that can use these
powerful tools for purposes that are not consistent with defending the
public welfare.

I don't have any answers, but I think that it is something that we did
not anticipate and that it deserves some serious thought.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 15:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult
to define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some
issues about the news media where Josh and I may disagree,
however.  I dislike Fox News, for example, and rarely watch it - my
right.  What bothered me immensely however, was when I went to
Florida and found that Fox News was the only news available in the
hotel where I stayed.  That is a business decision and I don't
think that one news organization should be allowed to dominate the
market.  Likewise, I worry a lot about the effort by Sinclair
Broadcasting to dictate what is reported in local news at stations
that they own.  In those scenarios it is too dangerous to risk
allowing anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market.  That is
not a free press IMV. Generally, I wish that we could find a way to
make news media immune from economic pressure.  Turning news
programs into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus?  We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any
organization campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe
for corruption. The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have
been wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is much too easy for anonymous money to
influence elections.  Should Facebook, Twitter, or other social
media be allowed to sell access to their customers data?  This goes
beyond politics and is fundamentally against what the developers of
the Internet intended.  I have long opposed push advertising as did
the early developers.
The Internet has definitely changed the calculus, but not in a good
way.   People search for information that confirms their bias and
that is easy to find, no matter how crazy you are.  Sadly, education
has not kept up with the barrage of material increasingly pushed at
you on the Internet.
Could be, but that is besides my point about a possible positive
impact of the Internet.  Perhaps thanks to the Internet, it's
impossible for anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market
because the Internet has done away with the concept of such a closed
off market.
You and I have disagreed before on the danger of well funded marketing,
especially in think tanks that have a political motive.  I have believed
for a long time that they can be very dangerous and have cited examples
of organizations that exist only to shape public opinion in a way that
benefits their owners financially.  I have seen them gain the appearance
of respectability in universities, even creating journals that promote
their agenda.
We have now seen how popular platforms on the Internet serve the same
purpose.  Microsoft put in place a mechanism for gathering profile
information about their users that they then sold to clients along with
tools for accessing and using that data.  We have recently seen where
Cambridge Analytica was able to use psychographic profiles of Americans
to target messages for the Trump campaign in a way that is questionably
illegal or at least not completely above board for users who were not
aware that they were setting themselves up to be targeted.  It is
claimed by the Justice Department that the Internet Research Agency in
St. Petersburg used this approach with Microsoft to intentionally sew
disruption in the 2016 election.  I've mentioned here before that I
noticed this in my own news feed in Facebook.
I doubt that this is unique to Facebook.  If you follow the hottest
topic in the field right now, you may have noticed all the papers that
are being published on "big data." Perhaps you have seen that when you
search for something on Amazon or Google that products which you were
looking for "chase you all over the Internet" as Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
commented in an interview on "Revolution" last week.  He also argued in
that interview that using your customer's data in that way was not moral
and that Apple had specifically chosen to not do it.  Still, Apple is an
enabler in the form of their Apps store and I wonder how carefully they
are screening before they release a new App.  Susan Landau, a
cybersecurity expert at Tufts claims that the Apps are full of holes.
Perhaps this is just an unwanted invasion of my privacy, but I think
that it is more likely a frightening aspect of the Internet that seems
more like *1984* than the servant that we all believed the Internet
would be - and I say that as someone who participated in that development.
When does free speech become public manipulation?  I don't know, but I
also suspect the motives of some organizations that can use these
powerful tools for purposes that are not consistent with defending the
public welfare.
I don't have any answers, but I think that it is something that we did
not anticipate and that it deserves some serious thought.
It does deserve serious thought, but it is still besides the point I was
making. Namely even assuming for the sake of argument you are correct,
it is still possible that the Internet has had the positive effect I
described (which may or may not be negated by your negative effect).
islander
2018-04-09 22:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing.  One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult
to define and therefore difficult to enforce.  There are some
issues about the news media where Josh and I may disagree,
however.  I dislike Fox News, for example, and rarely watch it -
my right.  What bothered me immensely however, was when I went to
Florida and found that Fox News was the only news available in the
hotel where I stayed.  That is a business decision and I don't
think that one news organization should be allowed to dominate the
market.  Likewise, I worry a lot about the effort by Sinclair
Broadcasting to dictate what is reported in local news at stations
that they own.  In those scenarios it is too dangerous to risk
allowing anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market.  That
is not a free press IMV. Generally, I wish that we could find a
way to make news media immune from economic pressure.  Turning
news programs into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.
Perhaps the Internet has changed this calculus?  We pretty much get
whatever news we want from whatever source we want.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any
organization campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe
for corruption. The laws against this are much too weak.
I'm with you that Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions have
been wrongly decided.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that it is much too easy for anonymous money
to influence elections.  Should Facebook, Twitter, or other social
media be allowed to sell access to their customers data?  This
goes beyond politics and is fundamentally against what the
developers of the Internet intended.  I have long opposed push
advertising as did the early developers.
The Internet has definitely changed the calculus, but not in a good
way.   People search for information that confirms their bias and
that is easy to find, no matter how crazy you are.  Sadly, education
has not kept up with the barrage of material increasingly pushed at
you on the Internet.
Could be, but that is besides my point about a possible positive
impact of the Internet.  Perhaps thanks to the Internet, it's
impossible for anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market
because the Internet has done away with the concept of such a closed
off market.
You and I have disagreed before on the danger of well funded
marketing, especially in think tanks that have a political motive.  I
have believed for a long time that they can be very dangerous and have
cited examples of organizations that exist only to shape public
opinion in a way that benefits their owners financially.  I have seen
them gain the appearance of respectability in universities, even
creating journals that promote their agenda.
We have now seen how popular platforms on the Internet serve the same
purpose.  Microsoft put in place a mechanism for gathering profile
information about their users that they then sold to clients along
with tools for accessing and using that data.  We have recently seen
where Cambridge Analytica was able to use psychographic profiles of
Americans to target messages for the Trump campaign in a way that is
questionably illegal or at least not completely above board for users
who were not aware that they were setting themselves up to be
targeted.  It is claimed by the Justice Department that the Internet
Research Agency in St. Petersburg used this approach with Microsoft to
intentionally sew disruption in the 2016 election.  I've mentioned
here before that I noticed this in my own news feed in Facebook.
I doubt that this is unique to Facebook.  If you follow the hottest
topic in the field right now, you may have noticed all the papers that
are being published on "big data." Perhaps you have seen that when you
search for something on Amazon or Google that products which you were
looking for "chase you all over the Internet" as Tim Cook, CEO of
Apple commented in an interview on "Revolution" last week.  He also
argued in that interview that using your customer's data in that way
was not moral and that Apple had specifically chosen to not do it.
Still, Apple is an enabler in the form of their Apps store and I
wonder how carefully they are screening before they release a new
App.  Susan Landau, a cybersecurity expert at Tufts claims that the
Apps are full of holes.
Perhaps this is just an unwanted invasion of my privacy, but I think
that it is more likely a frightening aspect of the Internet that seems
more like *1984* than the servant that we all believed the Internet
would be - and I say that as someone who participated in that
development.
When does free speech become public manipulation?  I don't know, but I
also suspect the motives of some organizations that can use these
powerful tools for purposes that are not consistent with defending the
public welfare.
I don't have any answers, but I think that it is something that we did
not anticipate and that it deserves some serious thought.
It does deserve serious thought, but it is still besides the point I was
making.  Namely even assuming for the sake of argument you are correct,
it is still possible that the Internet has had the positive effect I
described (which may or may not be negated by your negative effect).
Perhaps you are looking for absolutes. If you are asking if any media
company can have a monopoly on some segment of social media on the
Internet in the sense that they control everything that is communicated
in that media, then you would be right in observing that the Internet is
a positive influence in preventing that.

Short of that, there are social issues involving how the Internet is
actually used by the wealthy and/or powerful to manipulate minds. It is
here that I am concerned. I don't think that we know nearly enough
about social psychology to understand why this is dangerous. Clearly
there are those who believe strongly enough that it can be used to their
advantage that they are working very hard at it. Personally, this is a
concern to me.
El Castor
2018-04-08 20:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by wolfbat359
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/381871-free-speech-cannot-be-sacrificed-to-strike-fake-news
Is fake news a real problem or a phantom menace?
President Trump has railed against fake news, tweeting about it at least 140 times, conferring international cult status upon the term. Governments in countries as diverse as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, the Philippines and India have taken legal action purportedly in an attempt to combat fake news. The impetus for these actions escalated after revelations about Russian attempts to influence elections in the United States and France by orchestrating the spread of fake news through social media.
So, are politicians in these countries really motivated by the urge to promote truth? Or are these laws aimed at censoring the media?
First, what is “fake news”? There is no commonly understood definition. The Malaysian Anti-Fake News Act 2018 defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” In other words, the definition focuses purely on the accuracy of information without any concern for the intention of the news producer.
It does not distinguish between facts and opinion, either. The law makes it an offense to “knowingly create, offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news or publication containing fake news...” In addition to financial penalties and imprisonment for up to six years, the court can order an apology and removal of the offending news. .... (cont)
Did Trump coin the phrase "fake news?" I don't think so. The origins
of fake news are about 2010 when "click bait" was discovered as a way to
trick people into clicking on something in the title of a link that
sounds interesting. In a world of paying for the number of clicks, it
quickly became widely used. In the 2016 election, the Russians used the
Facebook news feed to push all sorts of false information onto your
screen and these sites were quickly replicated and spread across the
Internet. Trump's contribution was to call anything that he disagreed
with with the label "fake news."
"Hillary Clinton calls fake news 'an epidemic' with real world
consequences"
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fake-news-epidemic/index.html
"Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and 'Biggest Nothing
Burger Ever'"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557
"Hillary Clinton: Fake News Is Now Putting Lives at Risk"
http://www.newser.com/story/235227/hillary-clinton-fake-news-is-now-putting-lives-at-risk.html
And where was Obama when the Russians were pushing false news on
FaceBook?
There you go again!
I'm already on record in this thread in complete support of Josh's
opinion regarding government regulation of speech ...
Josh ... "The line between news and opinion is far too fine for the
government to be enforcing. One of the bedrock principles of Freedom
of Speech in the USA is that we live with speech unworthy of
protection in order to make sure we do not legally proscribe speech
worthy of protection."
Are you also in complete agreement with Josh?
I agree that the line between news and opinion would be difficult to
define and therefore difficult to enforce.
Even the use of the word "difficult" in this context is dangerous.
Difficulties can be overcome, but In this context "impossible" would
be more appropriate for the simple reason that truth will almost
always have a subjective element. 2+2 might always equal 4, but will
science that questions anthropogenic warming always be fake? You may
believe that to be the case, but I would disagree. I don't want a
government truth bureau making those decisions for me.
Post by islander
There are some issues about
the news media where Josh and I may disagree, however. I dislike Fox
News, for example, and rarely watch it - my right. What bothered me
immensely however, was when I went to Florida and found that Fox News
was the only news available in the hotel where I stayed. That is a
business decision and I don't think that one news organization should be
allowed to dominate the market.
Oh boy -- and this is how we end up like Venezuela. Until I read those
words I thought next year was 2019 -- now it's beginning to look like
1984. I won't bother to elaborate. It would be a waste of time. Next
time just tell your hotel that you want CNN, or you're moving.
Post by islander
Likewise, I worry a lot about the
effort by Sinclair Broadcasting to dictate what is reported in local
news at stations that they own. In those scenarios it is too dangerous
to risk allowing anyone to own exclusive rights to a media market. That
is not a free press IMV. Generally, I wish that we could find a way to
make news media immune from economic pressure. Turning news programs
into profit centers was a bad thing IMV.
Incredible.
Post by islander
When it comes to politicians or their Super PACs or any organization
campaigning on their behalf, I think that is a recipe for corruption.
The laws against this are much too weak. Personally, I think that it is
much too easy for anonymous money to influence elections. Should
Facebook, Twitter, or other social media be allowed to sell access to
their customers data? This goes beyond politics and is fundamentally
against what the developers of the Internet intended. I have long
opposed push advertising as did the early developers.
More difficult questions worthy of discussion.
Loading...