Why does society allow professional journalism to lie without consequences...

[RVonse]

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences? As an adult it is your responsibility to verify sources of your information. Yet that act of due diligence is neither easy or accurate in today's complex information world. Not all of us are lawyers and not all of us have common sense.


Society will not allow self prescribed drugs even if we are sure of the drugs we need. Laws to protect you from injury and further doctor profits. Society will not allow driving drunk or without a seat belt. Laws to protect you from injury and help the insurance firms. Society will not allow you to pay for sex from a willing partner because you may not have moral values...

Yet our society says it is all perfectly fine to spread fake news to the masses. Because consumers are adults who can check their own facts. Never mind that such practices have caused wrongful court verdicts, statues to be destroyed, and the storming of capital grounds. This is all good as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company.

And for those of you who think due diligence is easy....I copied a comment of the above video just to illustrate how ridiculously difficult it really is:

Regardless of your political leanings take a look at the project Veritas. They are obviously a reporting agency that sits heavily on one side of the political spectrum. If you Google them various sources will call them things like a conspiracy group etc. But what's really interesting is that they have won something like 9 out of 9 lawsuits that tried to PV slandered , committed libel, or put out lies during their coverage, PV was able to prove in a courtroom time and again that they were in fact not lying. So if you watched PV and just took their word for it-youd believe them. If you watched and wondered hmmm is that reliable and tried to do a little bit of research, you'd probably think, oh well this is a conspiracy group this stuffs probably made up. Then if you research further and read the documents and outcomes of the court cases, you'd again be wondering wow I wonder what is true.

 

[TomC]

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?

Two reasons off the top of my head.

A) Freedom of speech. There's no objective way to distinguish between a professional journalist and the rest of us. Nor is there a particularly good way to distinguish between something something that's false, partially true but deceptive, vehemently disagreed with, a quote, and various other flavors of journalism.

B) Deceptive journalism generally promotes to interests of the rich and powerful. Not always, of course, but generally it does.

Then there's that gap between journalism and infotainment. Entertainment is generally fiction. Journalism is supposed to be nonfiction. But where do you draw a line?
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wouldn't mind a required banner across the bottom of the screen with "opinion" stamped on it. When I was a young'un we had this Jewish lady named Dorothy Fuldheim that used to do an opinion piece on the local news. But we all knew this was opinion. As I recall, it was clearly stated in the newscast.

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.

 

[TomC]

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.

Because we have a capitalist media system.

It doesn't matter if what you produce is true or not. What matters is monetizing. Advertisers pay for audiences, not comprehensive accuracy. Anything that draws eyeballs gets funded. Lies that appeal to a target audience are much more profitable than accurate, balanced, and comprehensive journalism, because that's boring.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

There is a difference between lying (knowingly subverting the truth) and being wrong. I think proving someone is lying requires much more information than the facts. Moreover, why pick on journalists alone? Politicians lie and the stakes are just as high (if not higher).

 

[Patooka]

Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?

I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a difference between lying (knowingly subverting the truth) and being wrong. I think proving someone is lying requires much more information than the facts. Moreover, why pick on journalists alone? Politicians lie and the stakes are just as high (if not higher).

I think the term is defamation, and that requires (if I'm not mistaken) proving that the person knew the information was false and intended to negatively impact a person/organization.

I do like how all the news organizations are just lumped together too. FNC, OAN, and Newsmax are getting sued for lying about voting machines... to the point where a couple of those organizations listed out retractions on their BS. And Williams lied about being somewhere he wasn't. Moore-Coulter^googol.

 

[Patooka]

I do like how all the news organizations are just lumped together too. FNC, OAN, and Newsmax are getting sued for lying about voting machines... to the point where a couple of those organizations listed out retractions on their BS. And Williams lied about being somewhere he wasn't. Moore-Coulte

It's also worth pointing out that NBC held Brian Williams accountable. Publicly. I can't think of an instance FOX, NewsMax, Gateway Pundit etc has anything even remotely equivalent to their reporters/presenters.

 

[RVonse]

 

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?

Two reasons off the top of my head.

A) Freedom of speech. . But where do you draw a line?
Tom

If you make your primary income by offering your voice to the public. That's where the line should be drawn. Just like there are private pilots and commercial pilots, the later must abide by much more strict rules and regulation.

 

[TomC]

If you make your primary income by offering your voice to the public.

Does that include Alex Jones and Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson? That's what they do. The list of people in the infotainment world is pretty long. It's dominated by rightwing Trumpistas. If "primary income by offering your voice to the public" is your standard for professional journalist, and saying something untrue is a crime, an awful lot of Fox broadcasting would go away.
I think all that would be left is the Simpsons.
Tom

ETA ~Marjorie Taylor Greene often describes herself as "the voice of the people". Does her repeating the claim that Trump won the 2020 election make her a criminal? ~

 

[funinspace]

Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?

I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.

Do you feel dirtier as well

He'll, I doubt I got much past 13 seconds, let alone minutes...

 

[Jarhyn]

Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?

I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.

Do you feel dirtier as well

He'll, I doubt I got much past 13 seconds, let alone minutes...

Why even one second? Given OAN and Alex Jones and the like that RVonse has been huffing like fresh paint fumes in a stupid teenager's garage, it exploded every irony meter on earth in psychic range of the post.

We let a PRESIDENT lie without consequences, but the OP is silent on that. Public lies SHOULD see censure.

 

[Ford]

I wouldn't mind a required banner across the bottom of the screen with "opinion" stamped on it. When I was a young'un we had this Jewish lady named Dorothy Fuldheim that used to do an opinion piece on the local news. But we all knew this was opinion. As I recall, it was clearly stated in the newscast.

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.

I remember this as well. Bill Bonds (a Detroit news anchor) would sometimes turn to the camera and offer up his opinion, but it was clearly labeled as such.

There used to be laws on the books which made broadcasters at least offer to present opposing views. If a news anchor or some other pundit went on the air with a clearly labeled opinion piece, the station was required to offer an opportunity for the other side to respond, and if that other side took them up on the offer, the station was required to air it in it's entirety in the same or similar time slot. If a station had politician A on for a 20 minute interview, they had to have politician B on for a 20 minute stint to respond to politician A's positions.

The station had to fill out a lot of paperwork to document this, and file it with the regulatory agencies.

These laws were repealed in part because some broadcast outfits threw a lot of money at legislators to remove the requirement that 4 hours of political talk radio programming be balanced with 4 more hours of someone pointing out that "what that guy told you was complete and utter bullshit."

And hey...the broadcasters would say...this is all just entertainment! It's not "news" even though the station was named "News Radio 910" and marketed as a source of "unbiased" news. Four minutes of news at the top of the hour during four hours of unhinged one-sided political ranting was officially considered to be "objective journalism," and was marketed as such.

The some Australian guy figured that if this shit worked on radio, why not make an entire cable network devoted to selling opinion as news? Then the other outfits followed suit, because they followed the money.

 

[Metaphor]

What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?

 

[barbos]

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.

Because we have a capitalist media system.

It doesn't matter if what you produce is true or not. What matters is monetizing. Advertisers pay for audiences, not comprehensive accuracy. Anything that draws eyeballs gets funded. Lies that appeal to a target audience are much more profitable than accurate, balanced, and comprehensive journalism, because that's boring.
Tom

Bingo.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yet our society says it is all perfectly fine to spread fake news to the masses. Because consumers are adults who can check their own facts. Never mind that such practices have caused wrongful court verdicts, statues to be destroyed, and the storming of capital grounds. This is all good as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company.

I'm not sure who "our society" is, but the legal system in the US does not say it's perfectly fine. It makes no judgment as to whether it is fine. It is, however, allowed. But this is not so only as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company. It is allowed regardless of whether they do. And remember, it is also allowed to promote Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Wokeism, or any other ideology/religion that a person being rational about it would reject. It's the price of some freedoms.

 

[Politesse]

Because they find the lies entertaining.

 

[Ford]

What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?

Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.

 

[Metaphor]

What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?

Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.

I don't need any, but you've illustrated my point pretty well.

That Rittenhouse did not cross State lines armed is a simple falsehood, but despite its simplicity and falsity, it did not seem to stop the people repeating the falsehood without consequence. Neither can views on this event be described as an 'opinion' open to interpretation. Either Rittenhouse did it or he didn't.

Your example appears to me to fall far more into the territory of 'opinion'. I have never seen an hours-long documentary about the events on 1/6 so I don't know the source of what you are talking about specifically, but labelling something as 'patriotic' or not seems to me mere puffery either way. Joy Reid describing the Rittenhouse trial as white supremacy functioning exactly as it was designed to also seems to me mere puffery,

 

[Ford]

What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?

Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.

I don't need any, but you've illustrated my point pretty well.

So if it is an opinion that supports your opinion, it is factual and needs no scrutiny. Got it.