Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
This sounds a little, umm, dangerous. Like the government dictating the news and what the "truth" is. Sort of a "you are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as you say what we tell you" kind of a deal.
I'm no fan of Fox News or the right wing (or left wing) bull$hit machines, but the gubmint shouldn't be in the business of deciding "truth".
|
Yet this is exactly the way the media operated in the United States from 1934 to 1987. This was the golden age of journalism when the powerful were held in check and the media has their highest level of trust with the public. It was the removal of regulations that allowed for the schism in the mass media. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine was what allowed for the birth of Hate Radio and then Fox News. Prior to that, broadcasting with political bias was illegal. After those protections were removed from law, mass media was then allowed to broadcast what they wanted, how they wanted, and with whatever spin or lie they decided to put on information.
How would you feel if you discovered GlobalTV in Calgary buried a story about a carcinogenic hormone in the milk supply because one of their biggest advertisers would be hurt? Would this piss you off? Make you lose confidence in the mass media? That happened in the United States and was only allowed to happen because of deregulation and the loss of the requirement to air stories affecting the public interest. Mass media should not be able to bury a story, especially if it affects the public interest in such a significant way.
This isn’t a strange idea. You are aware that similar protections exist in Canada, the UK, Germany, and other western countries? The public trust is something that should never be messed with. For that reason there needs to be regulations on the behavior of mass media and protections in allowing them to do their job while presenting the facts.