Poll: Should "news" be a legally protected term?

[polymath]

Pretty simple idea here, should use of the term "news" be regulated so that bias and politics don't skew a news report. Now I'm not looking for discussion on how you'd do it or how a government could abuse control of the meaning of "news". What were talking about is the simple idea that a newspaper, television network or website could only call itself "news" if every story reported consisted of only facts and that any semblance of opinion or bias would lead to a fine and the party responisble having to forfeit the use of the word in describing themselves.

Allowances for editorials and pundits could be made provided that the group was force to clearly and constantly signpost these segments as such through perhaps a flashing "OPINION" icon on screen at all times on a TV show etc.

Sidenote: If you're going to complain about there only being two poll options then keep it to yourself, it's a hypothetical discussion and no one is forcing you choose so don't start bitching about wanting a middle ground to fence-sit on.

 

[aba1]

I would be for this as long as it was strickly this

 

[Gigano]

No.

Freedom of expression extends to protecting world views which consider their opinions unquestionable fact as well. Aside from the whole practical problem of who gets to determine how what is fact and what constitutes bias, and the patently obvious risk of very severe abuse even having such institution in place entails.

If the public does not possess sufficient critical reasoning skills to tell the difference on their own? Well, quite a sucky public you got there then.

 

[Cptn_Squishy]

I have a friend who says that to be called 'news' you should be prohibited from using subjective adjectives. If three people were killed in a tragic fire, its important to include 'three' but I should be the one to decide if it was 'tragic' or not.

 

[SoopaSte123]

I want to say "yes", but no. It can't be regulated. You can say you'll "only give facts" or what have you, but how you word it can always add bias and would continue to do so. Hell, even with the same words, you could still using vocal inflection to change how people interpret it. And then with 24 hour news networks, you'd constantly have people scouring over every line to see if it had a hint of opinion... Not practical. It's just not something that could be reasonably regulated.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

No. That is an absolutely unreasonable standard. Human beings are inherently flawed and, therefor, biased. You can find bias anywhere and everywhere. Bias is not a bad thing, it's a thing that is. Even if the bias is only in the things chosen to report, you're still finding bias and possibly the most insidious kind.

Understand the bias of the people you get your "news" from and you'll always be open to the idea that they're wrong or seeing it through a different lens.

If you have to make a law about bias, make it so that news organizations have to declare their bias upfront. Then you're safe and people can continue to be flawed creations that work toward their own happiness.

 

[aba1]

No.

Freedom of expression extends to protecting world views which consider their opinions unquestionable fact as well. Aside from the whole practical problem of who gets to determine how what is fact and what constitutes bias, and the patently obvious risk of very severe abuse even having such institution in place entails.

If the public does not possess sufficient critical reasoning skills to tell the difference on their own? Well, quite a sucky public you got there then.

I think you missed what he was saying he just saying to be called "News" you would need to be unbiased you could still have biased brodcasts just they would not be a newscast or a newspaper. He also mentioned that even then the news could have a bias at times as long as the mentioned that it is bias before hand.

 

[madwarper]

Something being "unbiased" is a nice concept, but impossible to implement in reality.

First, you'd have to establish what is and isn't "biased", which would differ from person to person, based on their... biases.

Then, you'd have to have something to enforce whatever you decided "unbiased" was, by people who are biased.

Finally, assuming you were able to remove all the "bias", and had just the facts, you'd have to decide which facts were and weren't worthy of being reported on, by people who are biased.

As I said, wonderful concept, impossible to implement.

 

[plugav]

No. That would only lead to a ridiculous amount of pointless lawsuits. And to a situation in which people will believe anything that's labeled "news."

Besides, at least in my country, it's already the law that news and commentary need to be clearly separated. Which works pretty okay without flashing signs on the screen saying "THIS IS AN OPINION."

 

[xdom125x]

I really want to say "yes" but it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. I want news stations to have as little bias on the stories they report as possible but it would be incredibly difficult to objectively determine what constitutes bias in this.
I think a "this is subjective" banner should only even be considered to appear if they are giving their opinions on politics but it would be difficult to determine if what they are claiming in there isn't actually true.

 

[Gigano]

...
I think you missed what he was saying he just saying to be called "News" you would need to be unbiased you could still have biased brodcasts just they would not be a newscast or a newspaper. He also mentioned that even then the news could have a bias at times as long as the mentioned that it is bias before hand.

Freedom of expression extends to protect the form chosen to convey and phrase a message as well. All formalia must have real and specific pressing societal needs behind them, ones that do not arise from a wish to weaken the impact of the speech regulated.

And it's quite hard to deny that having to preface statements with "this is our biased opinion" can greatly weaken the impact of a message.

Anyway, if people are sheepish enough to not know how to distinguish subjectively biased analysis from objective allegations of fact themselves, then no amount of societal cushioning will do them much good anyway. Why bother leading a dehydrated horse to water when it'll just drown itself in the water you can't force it to drink?

 

[aba1]

...
I think you missed what he was saying he just saying to be called "News" you would need to be unbiased you could still have biased brodcasts just they would not be a newscast or a newspaper. He also mentioned that even then the news could have a bias at times as long as the mentioned that it is bias before hand.

Freedom of expression extends to protect the form chosen to convey and phrase a message as well. All formalia must have real and specific pressing societal needs behind them, ones that do not arise from a wish to weaken the impact of the speech regulated.

And it's quite hard to deny that having to preface statements with "this is our biased opinion" can greatly weaken the impact of a message.

Anyway, if people are sheepish enough to not know how to distinguish subjectively biased analysis from objective allegations of fact themselves, then no amount of societal cushioning will do them much good anyway.

but your freedom of speech wouldn't be effected at all you would just be asked that if your going to run under the label of a newscast dont be bias you can be as bias as you please without the label simple as that.

Sorry way I see your arguement is if you were to perfectly hold up the idea of free speech to a 100% you would be able to paint on other peoples homes and call it freedom of speech as long as its writting there is always a limit and I don't see why being a news cast cant mean not being bias as long as you can be as bias as you want without the title

 

[Gigano]

...
but your freedom of speech wouldn't be effected at all you would just be asked that if your going to run under the label of a newscast dont be bias you can be as bias as you please without the label simple as that.

The efficiency of the speech would be lessened, the state would get to determine what constitutes "bias" and "fact", and the editorial freedom of the press to chose what news to convey how would be severely impacted.

Sorry way I see your arguement is if you were to perfectly hold up the idea of freespeach to a 100% you would be able to paint on other peoples homes and call it freedom of speech as long as its writting there is always a limit and I don't see why being a news cast cant mean not being bias as long as you can be as bias as you want without the title

Well, in that example regulating what you don't get to do with things that don't belong to you is quite reasonable, and pursue that pressing social need unrelated to the impact of the speech from before; protection of property rights. Hence a perfectly legitimate limitation on freedom of speech.

But where is the pressing social need for people not being able to choose news stations selecting and interpreting the facts they wish to convey in the context of a certain world view they wish to uphold an reinforce? It's really of little consequence whether it's called "FOX news" or "FOX revelations", its viewers aren't going to change the channel.

Having the state control and determine what is newsworthy and what is not is a hallmark of totalitarianism. And the whole "separate but equal" idea that those who disagree still get their say, as long as they make sure to say they're biased and don't use certain words to describe their broadcasts doesn't really look too pretty either.

 

[FalloutJack]

All news IS biased and influenced by politics.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

I think NEWS is simply anything that's NEW. Through it's preferable if the NEWS subject is interesting, as well.