Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do we need still need the "press"?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3007912" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Profanity and nudity are factual questions: "did he/she say/show it?" There's not really room for interpretation there. "False or misleading reporting" is very much a matter of opinion--in fact, it's entirely possible to report only statements that are perfectly truthful and still leave a false impression...and that's before you even get into the inherent bias in story selection itself.</p><p></p><p>A good intellectual exercise: for any standard you propose, imagine the judging to be in the hands of your opposition. Do you want a leftist judge (or, if it's the FCC, an administrative law judge, who has even more flexibility and less accountability than an Article III judge) deciding on the truthfulness of a story exposing a fraud in climate study, given that the consensus is that AGW is real, and thus exposing a single fraudulent scientist--though it may be entirely truthful and accurate to do so--may paint a "misleading picture" of the state of the science in general?</p><p></p><p>There's a very good reason the Supreme Court has held that "the best remedy for bad speech is more speech."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3007912, member: 13624"] Profanity and nudity are factual questions: "did he/she say/show it?" There's not really room for interpretation there. "False or misleading reporting" is very much a matter of opinion--in fact, it's entirely possible to report only statements that are perfectly truthful and still leave a false impression...and that's before you even get into the inherent bias in story selection itself. A good intellectual exercise: for any standard you propose, imagine the judging to be in the hands of your opposition. Do you want a leftist judge (or, if it's the FCC, an administrative law judge, who has even more flexibility and less accountability than an Article III judge) deciding on the truthfulness of a story exposing a fraud in climate study, given that the consensus is that AGW is real, and thus exposing a single fraudulent scientist--though it may be entirely truthful and accurate to do so--may paint a "misleading picture" of the state of the science in general? There's a very good reason the Supreme Court has held that "the best remedy for bad speech is more speech." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do we need still need the "press"?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom