Would this be a nanny state law or a law for the national good?

[Stinky The Clown]

There has always been discussion of the Fairness Doctrine. Many think it forced honesty on the news. It didn't and that wasn't even close to its intent.

So how about this:

Define NEWS in legal terms.

Require that any and all media, apart from the personal, clearly identify when they are reporting news. For example, require they display a bug on their screens that says NEWS. Require that they can only deal in facts. Not equivalencies. Not opinions. Not debate. Just actual facts.

Make a BIG DEAL out of the new system. Make sure everyone knows what news and facts are. Enforce the new law vigorously.

Everything else can stay as it is. Fox can keep on spewing their spew. They just can't call it NEWS. Breitbart can do whatever they wish. Rachel Maddow will have to break her self indulgent story telling into fact and opinion/analysis.

No one will be REQUIRED to give anyone the news. If Fox wants to continue to be GOPropaganda, no problem. They can even give their flavor of "news" but they will not be allowed to call it news.

[melm00se]

1. the problem with that

is I can present "facts" but "facts" can be omitted (rarely do you get all the facts) or colored by word selection or positioning within the newscast, these can (and do) skew the perception of the event(s).

Is the next step a law/regulation that a station/network must carry stories A, B and C with the following wording and time positioning during the broadcast hour?

[Wounded Bear]

2. Nice try, but it won't pass the 1st Amendment challenge...nt

[GulfCoast66]

3. No thanks

I'll stick with the first amendment instead.

Because we regularly see even here on DU that it is not just people on the right who would like the government to censor those they disagree with. As demonstrated by your scenario.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. This can't even be stretched to be called censorship

There is no requirement to present news. You can present a news like half hour of bullshit if you like. You just can't display the NEWS bug.

[Upin]

12. That implies a huge assumption that you will agree with whichever authority...

... is deemed to determine the finite line between facts and opinion.

[GulfCoast66]

13. You deny censorship

Then proceed to tout censorship.

If the government punishes someone for calling any speech by the wrong name it is by definition censorship.

I can call porn news, a sit-com news or a brown cow news. If the government punishes me for that it is censorship.

The first amendment covers ALL speech.

[Throd]

5. Simply a bad idea. n/t

[CBGLuthier]

7. What should the penalty be for those who dare to defy this bullshit edict?

Flogging? Execution?

No thanks, we don't need some nebulous "someone" to decide what is news and what isn't. What are acceptable facts and what aren't.

Surely you realize this bullshit is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian countries, not free ones.

[Turin_C3PO]

8. The question is

who would be appointed to determine if what's being reported is factual or not? You know the Repubs, if in charge, would call Fox Spews fact-based reporting.

[ileus]

9. Who gets to determine what's news?

[pinboy3niner]

10. The Ministry of Truth

[Upin]

11. Completely uneforceable and subjective...

... and ripe for abuse.

[tritsofme]

14. I don't understand this authoritarian impulse to impose government control on the press.

Especially from people on the left, it is just foreign to me, and quite scary.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Trump wants to jimmy with the media, too.

I don't think it's a very good idea. The 1st Amendment shouldn't be screwed with lightly- or at all.

[Peaches999]

16. This would be unconstitutional

The only medium where news can be regulated is on governmentally leased airwaves.