Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Translation: if groups with power or influence don't like it, its right out.

Actually no. If you transmit things that are factually inaccurate or outright lies, you are out.

News outlets exist to inform people of facts and events, if you wan't to spin stuff to your side you have editorial programs.

Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

Frazzled wrote:I love how Fox pisses you lefties off no end. It warms my cold black heart.

Agreed. I don't watch Fox at all, but I love it when I can read a thread like this and enjoy a heaping helping of rage.

That Fox News can be reasonably considered to have a somewhat conservative slant on its stories is hardly new territory.

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I would think that silly little things like FACTS would make it easier to decide?

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I would think that silly little things like FACTS would make it easier to decide?

Interviewer interviews three people for a job. He asks each one question.
He asks the engineer. “Whats two plus two?”
Engineer breaks out the slide rule (yes its that old of a joke), does some quick calcs and says “4.” Interviewer says thank you and moves on.

He asks the accountant. “Whats two plus two?”
The accountant breaks out their latest FASB rules, checks the debits and credits and says “4.”
Interviewer says thank you and moves on.

He asks the lawyer. “Whats two plus two?”
The lawyer calmly goes over to the window, closes the blinds and quietly asks “how much do you want it to be?”
Interviewer : You’re hired.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)

The use of the discovery by German troops of the Katyn massacre by Stalin to delegitimize the Polish exile government.

The Spaghetti tree.

Really Frazz, while I agree with you in concept it's a bit of a slippery slope argument to argue that any regulation instantly leads to tyrrany and opression, which you seem to be doing.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)

This or this kind of thing are demonstrably false, one is unreseached and the other fabricated, both are lies.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)

Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Usually, reality does.

Trying to claim that truth is subjective just makes you look like a wishy-washy hippy.

You're not a wishy-washy hippy.

It doesn't work, Fraz.

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)

This or this kind of thing are demonstrably false, one is unreseached and the other fabricated, both are lies.

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.

Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Thats who decides what they like and don't like.

Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.

I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...

Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)

Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.

I'll categorically give in simple factual catches. However generally FOX (which is the subject of the thread is accused of falsehoods and evil EVIL!!!! all the time, but generally it comes down to opinions not falsehoods.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.

Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?

They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"

Usually, reality does.

Trying to claim that truth is subjective just makes you look like a wishy-washy hippy.

You're not a wishy-washy hippy.

It doesn't work, Fraz.

Yea it does actually. Its called courtroom.

Frazzled wrote:I'll categorically give in simple factual catches. However generally FOX (which is the subject of the thread is accused of falsehoods and evil EVIL!!!! all the time, but generally it comes down to opinions not falsehoods.

Don't forget Frazz, any opinion right-of-center is factually false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...

Holy crap, seriously? They get warned, sued, and can lose their license if they merely report on allegations that are later proven to be false?

I suspect crime reporting is virtually nonexistent then.

I guess they cul.d report crime after the conviction and all appeals have gone through the system.

Frazzled wrote:Yea it does actually. Its called courtroom.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical or true.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yea it does actually. Its called courtroom.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical or true.

And here's the argument for why government censorship doesn't work right there.

What happens when Melissia types determine if its a "fact" or not?

Melissia would you shut down Fox right now if you had the power?
What about MSNBC, CNN, Washington Times, Washington Post, Salon?

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.

Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?

No as they are ALLEGATIONS, reporting it as fact that it did occur rather than it is alleged to have occurred should be illegal.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...

Holy crap, seriously? They get warned, sued, and can lose their license if they merely report on allegations that are later proven to be false?

I suspect crime reporting is virtually nonexistent then.

That is why you have to say allegedly, otherwise you kind of fail on the innocent until proven guilty thing.

SO how is that different than current law?

Frazzled wrote:SO how is that different than current law?

It IS the current law.

Examples of Fox News telling a falsehood?

This is going to be easy.

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Dana-Perino-On-Diane-Sawyer

Here, we have Fox News claiming that Diane Sawyer's first question to Romney was about him having his dog ride on the roof of his car.

Quote: "That was her first question. Not how are you going to create jobs? What is going wrong? How will you turn things around? It was why did you let your dog ride on the roof of the car?"

And, here's the transcript of the interview: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-diane-sawyer-sits-mitt-ann-romney/story?id=16150624&singlePage=true#.T5Wj-GFTUrF

Things that were asked about before the dog came up (keep in mind many topics had multiple questions):
Basic Nominee questions (how does it feel? etc)
Romney's Tax Returns
Relatability Issues
Tax Reform
HUD
Equal Pay for Women
Abortion
War in Afghanistan
Ann Romney's connection to women's issues

And, then, after all that, the dog is brought up.


Fox News presented an absolute lie.

Joey wrote:Fox is a spectacle. It wouldn't be allowed in the UK by virtue of being fething mental.

What exactly are we calling Sky News then?

Davylove21 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.

There really isn't.

You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.

Frazzled wrote:I love how Fox pisses you lefties off no end. It warms my cold black heart. Its probably how I feel when viewing MSNBC, the New York Times, Pacifica Radio, NBC/ABC news, or the Washington Post. Strangely I still read the Washington Post and NY Times and don't want them banned, with their editors tarred and feathered. Guess you can't take a contrasting opinion...

It also warms the cockles of my heart, almost as much as posting how much you hate Fox for it's lack of integrity and post clips from bastions of journalistic integrity like Russia Today. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The Spaghetti tree.

Really Frazz, while I agree with you in concept it's a bit of a slippery slope argument to argue that any regulation instantly leads to tyranny and oppression, which you seem to be doing.

Did you really attempt to use an April Fool's hoax as an example of fake news? If that's the direction you wanted to go why not go all the way?
http://www.theonion.com/
Not real news you say? That's kind of the point isn't it.

Frazzled wrote:Melissia would you shut down Fox right now if you had the power?

No. But I would publicly denounce it and penalize it if it spread falsehoods.

Having it shut down would require a massive scandal.

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SO how is that different than current law?

It IS the current law.

Sorry US law. Here Public figures have less leeway, but we hate them anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Examples of Fox News telling a falsehood?

This is going to be easy.

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Dana-Perino-On-Diane-Sawyer

Here, we have Fox News claiming that Diane Sawyer's first question to Romney was about him having his dog ride on the roof of his car.

Quote: "That was her first question. Not how are you going to create jobs? What is going wrong? How will you turn things around? It was why did you let your dog ride on the roof of the car?"

And, here's the transcript of the interview: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-diane-sawyer-sits-mitt-ann-romney/story?id=16150624&singlePage=true#.T5Wj-GFTUrF

Things that were asked about before the dog came up (keep in mind many topics had multiple questions):
Basic Nominee questions (how does it feel? etc)
Romney's Tax Returns
Relatability Issues
Tax Reform
HUD
Equal Pay for Women
Abortion
War in Afghanistan
Ann Romney's connection to women's issues

And, then, after all that, the dog is brought up.


Fox News presented an absolute lie.

Wait really? Thats all you've ing got? What a pussy.

AustonT wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.

There really isn't.

You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.

The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Melissia would you shut down Fox right now if you had the power?

No. But I would publicly denounce it and penalize it if it spread falsehoods.

Having it shut down would require a massive scandal.

So you would actually. Note the key phrase you just said. "Penalize" it. Yea. The Ministry of Truth has a job for you.

Frazzled wrote:So you would actually. Note the key phrase you just said. "Penalize" it.

Penalize != shut down.

Otherwise companies like Microsoft would have been shut down ages ago.