America Needs a New Way to Combat Disinformation Now

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
QWatch.org
@QWatch_org
After the Capitol Siege, the United States Needs a Commission on Information Integrity

After 9/11, Washington formed a national commission that made the country safer. It should do the same now.

America Needs a New Way to Combat Disinformation Now
After 9/11, Washington formed a national commission that made the country safer. It should do the same now.
foreignpolicy.com
2:15 PM · Jan 22, 2021

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/22/united-states-capitol-siege-disinformation-commission/

[SheltieLover]

1. Absolutely!

[SheltieLover]

2. Instant karma!

Heres answer:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214988817

[canuckledragger]

3. Wasn't there already a law in place to combat that years ago

Called 'The Fairness Doctrine', that Republicans dumped because it got in the way of their lying in news broadcasts?

[stillcool]

4. Dems have been trying to get it reinstated...

same old, same old...

The Court "ruled unanimously in 1969 that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

On August 5, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4–0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision,[27] which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[28] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

[canuckledragger]

5. So yeah...

They repealed it because they couldn't lie to the public easily with it active.

[Celerity]

10. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to cable, satellite, or the internet

[canuckledragger]

11. I'm sure that had been they left it alone

The fairness doctrine would've been expanded to cover those.

[Celerity]

12. No, it would not have.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6439197002

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses.

The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is "distinct from cable, satellite, and the Internet, which are all services for which consumers must pay.

"It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers," it continues.

Therefore, it's unlikely that the Fairness Doctrine would have impacted Fox News, even if it were in effect in 1996, when Roger Ailes launched the channel.

"The FCC would, in all likelihood, have been restricted to regulating the content of public broadcasters, leaving Fox News to its own devices, like hundreds of other cable and satellite channels," Snopes wrote last time this claim surfaced online.

[Mariana]

6. One thing that can be done right away

is to have the IRS enforce the Johnson Amendment. If churches and ministries want to preach in support of this or that candidate or party, they can damn well pay taxes.

[Silent3]

7. I heartily agree, but even if there is the political will (?) the First Amendment implications...

...are tricky.

After all, who gets to be arbiter of truth? And how do you allow for mere mistakes while disallowing deliberate lies? How much legal responsibility would various individuals have for validating and fact checking? (I'm sure many of us have, in fact, accidentally passed on stories and memes that turned out to be false.)

It's of course not impossible to solve this problem. A variation on the standards for defamation might work as a start. But it'll be hard to get right. (I myself am currently fighting a free-speech issue in court, and discovering that my freedom of speech might not be as well protected as I thought.)

[moondust]

8. Truth In Advertising

Truth In Advertising

When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses.
~
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

How about Truth In Broadcasting modeled on this only not limited to commercial advertising?

[hunter]

9. Quit traditional television.

My wife and I did it more than a decade ago.

No broadcast, no cable, no satellite.

Best of all, no commercials!

[hunter]

13. I mock people who subscribe to that shit...

... just as I mock gun fetishists.