[chiefalchemist]

Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled.

Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparent.

[youpassbutter]

> Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar.

News was never news. It was actually branding by the news industry in the 20th century that duped everyone into thinking that news was objective. If you are interested, go look at what newspapers were in the 1800s. They were propaganda outfits created by wealthy individuals to push agenda. The oldest newspaper in the US ( NY Post ) was a propaganda organization created by Madison to attack Thomas Jefferson and his agrarian ideals. The highest prize in journalism is the pulitzer prize which is named for the founder of yellow journalism.

I think we are better off removing the lie that news is objective and go back to the truth. News is propaganda. I think it'll be healthy for the nation to accept reality rather than blindly accepting an idealized falsehood.

> Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced.

How? That's an impossibility. For example, when CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo write favorable anti-2nd amendment "news" articles and Foxnews write favorable pro-2nd amendment "news" articles, how are you going to define objectivity?

Are we going to have biased government officials deciding what objective news is? Do you trust obama or trump to decide what is biased and what isn't biased? I certainly don't.

I think all news should contain labeling informing the public that these organizations are all propaganda organizations with heavy biases and let the public consume as they see fit. Just like with cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc.

I certainly don't want government deciding what is objective.

[specialist]

Accepting the history of media...

This is no different then the replication crisis in science.

If you want to be taken seriously, show your work. Sources, hard data, citations, on the record quotes, analysis.

Otherwise it's just gossip, agitprop, heresay.

[zaroth]

Ok, you’re crazy. A “legal definition of news” is exactly what the first amendment is setup to prevent.

What I think it’s time for is to demand personal responsibility for critically thinking about what you read or listen to.

The state cannot ever be trusted to control what you watch, read, or listen to, full stop. This has only ever ended in disaster, and we’ve known this for centuries.

When people who don’t like what someone is saying call for government to stop that person from speaking, and that person isn’t directly inciting violence, I would kindly ask those people to fuck off. Maybe move to a more totalitarian regime if that’s to their liking.

News, editorials, and political commentary are nothing at all like the ingredient list on the back of your soda can.

[specialist]

How do you feel about food labeling laws?

[zaroth]

Mentioned in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16834574

But in short, very much pro food labeling. This might have something to do with having two kids with T1D, one who also has celiac.

[chiefalchemist]

Nah. The 1st Amendment does not protect shouting "fire" in a movie theater. As coveted as it might be, the 1st A doesn't give license to a free for all of junk food. There are licensing for plumbers, electricians and hair stylists. __None__ of those are essentials to a healthy democracy.

There is also the legal concept of false advertising. If you're saying (objective) "news" and it's (subjective) editorial, then that's clearly false advertising.

This wasn't the most exciting things I ever read, but it was helpful.

"Freedom for the Thought That We Hate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_W...

re: "News, editorials, and political commentary are nothing at all like the ingredient list on the back of your soda can."

One, this is editorial pure.

Two, it's also false. We know that you are what you consume. Whether that's what goes in your mouth, your lungs, up your nose, or into your brain.

Is you can't label Aspartame as sugar, then why should editorial being called news be allowed? Context matters.

[kaendfinger]

The "fire" in a movie theater argument is a horse than has been beaten to death for so long, and I seriously doubt anyone who says this phrase knows it's history, or even cares to think for themselves about how much of a cliche it is.

[chiefalchemist]

The point is, cliche or not, not all speech is 100% protected 100% of the time. That myth is bigger than the fire myth is cliche.

[pnw_hazor]

There are different kinds of speech.

Commercial speech, such as, advertising has less protection than most other forms of speech.

Political speech (AKA news) is the most protected speech.

[nugi]

But News is very much commercial speech as well, if not moreso than political.

[pnw_hazor]

A news organization maybe a commercial venture, but news is not commercial speech.

Advertising, product labels, or advertisement signs are examples of commercial speech.

[chiefalchemist]

But. You're in the weeds. They saying "we're news" and they're not. It's 90% editorial.

As for the actual content and their right to say it? It's their right. It's protected. But selling snake oil as a cure for cancer? That's the issue.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[jakebasile]

People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

With the regularity I see it parroted I very much hope the former is more common than the latter.

As to the proposal of labeling content, who decides what is news and what isn't? The government? What agency and how will that agency be staffed and regulated? What redress does an outlet have if they feel they are unjustly labeled because their opinion differs from that censor board?

What if it's not a government body but an industry body? Many of the same issues apply since the majority will have power over the minority. This particular mode of self-censorship has precedent, as the movie, video game, and music industries created their own censor boards in lieu of government regulation (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA).

[thaumasiotes]

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

I don't follow this entire line of thought. As with your parent comment:

>> Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

"THEREFORE, any idea supported by this argument is a bad idea"?

How can the provenance of the argument be relevant?

[dragonwriter]

> Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

No, the “fire in a crowded theater” thing isn't an argument, it's a claim about the law often used as a premise in other arguments.

The problem with that claim is that it's a claim about the application of Constitutional law and limits to free speech in a particular fact pattern that was dicta unsupported by prior case law offered as part of the explanation for a decision which has itself since been overturned as inappropriately limiting freedom of speech in a way directly contrary to the core purpose of the Constitutional protection.

That is:

* It was not a statement of the law grounded in valid authority,

* It wouldn't be valid authority on the law itself even if the decision it was articulated in was valid authority, and

* The case it was articulated in is, in fact, no longer valid authority.

Therefore, any argument which takes it as a premise stands on sand, as the premise is unsupported.

[jakebasile]

The provenance shows what the argument can be and has been used to justify - censorship of thoughts deemed unacceptable by people in a position of power.

[zaroth]

Yes there are licenses to ensure safety and compliance for plumbers, electricians, and hair stylists. And if I understand what I'm reading, some people here calling for similar "licensing" for anyone who wants to report the "news". While I'm in favor of the former, I am strictly and uncompromisingly against the latter.

Freedom of the press, the freedom to report on the news, opine on the news, and editorialize the news, in my mind is sacrosanct. "Incorrectly" reporting the news is not false advertising, and I would strongly hope that any attempt to license, monitor, or censor any news outlets (no matter how ragtag or unpopular) would be shot down hard by the 1st, barring the well established limits around direct incitement of violence.

Ingredient lists are a public safety measure. People with food allergies eat a mislabeled product and they die. People with an allergy to Fox news can change the channel and listen to CNN if they so choose. There isn't a 1st amendment right to sell someone a product (like a can of soda) and lie to them about what is in it.

I can debate the merits of any article from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or even Breitbart. I can debate how much an article in any of those publications seek to neutrally inform, or seeks to present a specific viewpoint, or seeks to outright persuade its readers of what to think. Reasonable people will disagree emphatically in such a debate.

But no reasonable person can disagree that the can of Coke Zero sitting next to me contains; Carbonated water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate, natural flavors, potassium citrate, acesulfame potassium, and caffeine.

Watch 5 minutes of news coverage of Comey's book on each of the major networks. Now tell me which were news and which were editorial. Spoiler alert: It's a rorschach test. Even objective news is not free of characterization and choice of diction which colors the facts being reported. Newsrooms have editors for a reason. Even the choice of which facts to report and which not is an editorial decision which must be made when reporting the news.

So I submit there can be no news that is entirely free and devoid of editorial. To report on Comey's book, you would have to sit in front of the camera and read it from cover to cover in a monotone voice without inflection or facial tic. And even that itself would be a type of performance art with its own editorial value.

For all the claims that fake news is "killing democracy" or "dangerous to democracy" I think the one thing that truly can kill a democracy is violating the 1st amendment and trying to establish some government censor of newscasts, podcasts, books, or vlogs because you think the message is wrong, misleading, dangerous, offensive, propaganda.

[chiefalchemist]

So it would be wrong for the media industry - sans the gov - to establish quality control standards? If movies are "self rated" certainly we deserve to be told what's editorial.

[jsgo]

While I agree, I think I'd be saddened by what it would suss out: that people don't really want news.

The sad part would be that even after this, people would still look to the Hannitys, the Maddows, the Carlsons, the Lemons of the world for their news. I understand the reasoning behind it (zero effort way of processing news). Where it does become dangerous is if someone turns a non-news/fake news item into a talking point to deceive the viewer into thinking it is legitimate like the content based on real news items.

I guess the beginning of the end was to allow channels specific to "news" to propagate. In an ever growing fight for ratings, something if we're being honest that shouldn't be a news team's goal, they've had to at best fluff the news or at worst make it controversial for ratings sake. I like CNN and feel them to be fairly "even", but even I have to question the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" nature of constant BREAKING NEWS items that are on their site at any given time and I would imagine is pretty frequent on social media (at least, anything I see shared from CNN seems to have breaking: at the beginning).

Maybe the local news showing national/international news format would be best, but with some kind of regulation to prevent them from politicizing it. Now what that would be defined by, I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't be heavy in ratings though.

[bradleyankrom]

I think putting the Hannitys and Carlsons on the same level as the Maddows and the Lemons implies a false equivalency. Everyone has an agenda, yeah, but one of those groups is deliberately misleading its viewers.

[chiefalchemist]

Um. They're all pretty deliberate. They're all gainfully employed based on one key KPI: ad revenue. They have a target market. They have a narrative. And they work that to the tune of ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

Death by cancer is still death whether it's Red State death or Blue State death. That's about as equal as it gets.

None of the four you listed quality as news or journalism. One another day we can discuss what they really are, but news and journalists they are not.

[bradleyankrom]

What qualifies as news or journalism?

[specialist]

Verified sources, citations, quotes on the record.

Otherwise it's gossip, heresay, agitprop

[jsgo]

From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, David Muir seems to deliver in a way that doesn't seem heavy in bias. Admittedly, I don't watch ABC a lot so I don't see a ton of him, but his content seems pretty impartial.

[chiefalchemist]

Perfect example. He's nothing more than a talking head. He's reading a script off a teleprompter. He's there - and Katie Couric isn't - because he tests well and the rating are strong.

That doesn't make him a journalist. Nor does it make what falls from his lips news.

[chiefalchemist]

Funny enough, my term papers in grade school come to mind. We were required to take a subject, investigate it, present both / all arguments, and then draw a conclusion as based on the investigation.

Journalists ask questions. Tough question. The hard questions. Taking the narrative of a rumour and/or a "press release" is not journalism. When there's an over-use of "power words" and heavy handed adjectives that manipulate the interpretation, that's not journalism either.

That's the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe it's kinda like porn? I'll know it when I see it?

[jsgo]

While I agree they're not all the same or approaching the median at the same rate, my statement was in their propensity towards editorializing. Whereas people view them (well, typically if they agree with them) as newspeople. I was going mostly by personalities that seem to have the largest viewerships, purely anecdotal though, admittedly.

[lainga]

Maddow spins the news just as hard, whether you can/want to see it or not.

[bradleyankrom]

Spins news as hard as Hannity and Tucker Carlson?

[pnw_hazor]

Yes.

[metamet]

Maddow definitely creates a narrative out of the current events. Hannity is on another level, though, making dishonest use of every logical fallacy in order to push the state directed agenda.

He is one of the "allies" Trump pushes his propaganda through: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382993-white-hous...

> Trump also urged supporters to watch Fox News host Sean Hannity's show on Wednesday, during which Hannity called for Rosenstein to be fired.

[philwelch]

This isn't new. Pulitzer and Hearst practiced "yellow journalism" that wouldn't look a day out of date compared to Fox News. Most news sources in the world and throughout history have had clear editorial biases at the very least.

Even they heyday of "unbiased", "impartial" news was anything but--there just weren't many outlets for people to express dissenting views, and the lack of transparency was shocking at times. For example, Lyndon Johnson once got annoyed at reporters asking him why the US intervened in Vietnam, exposed his genitalia to them, and shouted, "this is why!"

The notion of a kindly old Walter Crokite-esque gentleman telling us the news every night in a fair and impartial way was always an illusion, and it's one that shouldn't be mourned.

[specialist]

Not a new problem. My favorite modern retellings:

"Network" [1978] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

"De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" [1980] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v2GDbEmjGE

[spydum]

I can't help but observe that substantial movement of pressure and criticism in the US around biased journalism, and fake news is shifting the narrative (or preparing it) for state-controlled media. We thought it was bad before, and social media and independent journalism was supposed to be the underdog here to help usurp those big-corp biases.. but it turned out to be the exact opposite. So whats left? big government to step in and defend us helpless civilians, and make sure we only recieve official state truth. I hope I am wrong.

[openasocket]

Universities in the US (and most other countries) need accreditation to be considered universities and to qualify to education grants and the like. That doesn't mean that all universities are state-run, only providing a government-approved curriculum. There's lots of controls you can put in place to limit government control. In the case of university accreditation, the government generally gives the responsibility to a handful of NGOs, along with regional bodies.

[openasocket]

I've thought about that idea as well, have some sort of official standard for something to be called news. Requirements about the separation between editorial and objective content, requirements for certain standards of fact checking and confirmation before reporting, etc. If you don't abide by those standards, you don't get official accreditation as a reliable news source. Give it some sort of official seal or recognition so consumers can see that this show or website is trustworthy. Maybe add some tax credits for these sources, or subsidies or grants to give them an additional edge over their competition. We already have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, maybe we expand the grants made available and provide stricter requirements for eligibility.

All that said, I am ... hesitant about such a system. It would be immensely controversial, and puts a lot more power in the hands of government over the news content Americans watch every day. The only way to assuage my concerns about that is to make the base standards a pretty lower bar, just things about confirming stories and requiring the submission of corrections and redactions when needed. And add in something to protect journalists, so that the government can't revoke a new source's accreditation because they leaked CIA documents about torture or something else embarrassing to the government. Maybe model it more like university accreditation, where accreditation of news sources involves the input from NGOs and regional government entities.

There's also some question about how helpful it would really be: I imagine the people who watch Info Wars aren't going to stop because it doesn't have the government seal of approval. I think you'd need to give a lot in subsidies or benefits to accredited news sources to give them an edge.

[achileas]

A lot of times, I really fail to see the (negative) distinction between an unelected government bureaucracy controlling something like this and unelected corporate entity controlling something like this. Wars were started at the behest of large publishers thanks to yellow journalism starting from fairly early in US history.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[pnw_hazor]

Hmmm, like China?

[openasocket]

How is it like China? The government isn't suppressing speech, they are merely giving recognition to organizations that meet certain standards of journalism. It has no force of law behind it, it's merely to create a public registry of which new sources meet certain standards of journalism. The public is free to look at which sources are certified to make more informed decisions about what news they consume, or they can just ignore it. Hell, it doesn't even need to be done by the government, it could be done by an NGO.

[chrisseaton]

I think most news is pretty much useless without any kind of analysis, and that analysis is effectively editorial.

If I tell you a vote in congress passed, that doesn't really tell me much without saying whether the vote was expected to pass or not, or why, or what the vote passing means, etc. And that's all opinion. Even if you try to present it factually it's all judgement.

[chiefalchemist]

True. But it can still be presented as what it is, an opinion. "It is the opinion of this reporter..." or "Based on what we know and the current facts..." Etc.

Better still, "What we don't know is..." The gaps in the analysis are never pointed out. Yes, that makes it opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but then it's not analysis, and certainly not transparent in the journalism sense of the word.

The problem is, stuff with obvious _glaring_ holes gets presented as full-investigated and complete.

[chrisseaton]

I don't know if perhaps we are better off declaring bankruptcy and taking a worse-is-better approach here and not even having the pretence of unbiased media, because maybe it's not possible.

In the UK newspapers basically publicly declare their bias and everyone knows so you make sure you read a left-biased paper as well as a right-biased one.

I don't know if the wire services manage to be completely unbiased?

[chiefalchemist]

It's a start. My rub isn't news or editorial per se, but how they are not the same thing. Yet are so often not at all differentiated.

What some thinks (editorial) is not the same as facts, based on investigation.

[pgrote]

I hear you, but do you remember CNN Headline News when it started? It was perfect with no analysis needed.

You got facts ... the who, what when, where. No analysis, no spin, no entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGJh8VnHZGw

If someone were to do this today in print, audio or video, I would gladly pay $50 a month. Information only with no opinion or analysis.

[specialist]

That'd be nice. Alas...

"The Media Can Legally Lie" [2003] https://web.archive.org/web/20100421103357/http://www.projec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsui...

[dclowd9901]

I think a broadcaster should be held liable for dispersing any information that is knowingly _or_ unknowingly not 100% true. You might say, "But chilling effects!", but it's high time news chilled the hell out.

[dragonwriter]

The problem is the safe thing to do with that regulations that to try to find truth of substantive claims, but instead tomjudt uncritically relay sourced rumor: it's very easily to be completely factual if everything you report is “So and so says that...” regurgitating official statements from interested parties without attempting to validate the claims the originator is making.

[chiefalchemist]

How about we start with the over-use of "leaked"?

For example the new James Comey book was not "leaked." What happened was, the publicist kicked off the marketing campaign and MSM feeding frenzy and hyping begins. The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

A real journalist would not use the worded "leaked" as that's not only entirely misleading, it's a lie. Stating the obvious or not, a real journalist / legit news outlet would not make assumption, they would make sure the context is 100% clear.

[dragonwriter]

> The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

I've yet to see any news piece on Comey, whether or not the context involved his book, since the firing not mention the firing, and, since the appointment of Mueller, also mention that the firing is widely perceived as instrumental in leasing to the Special Counsel being appointed.

The idea that the coverage of the book never mentions the firing is laughable.

[bobwaycott]

> The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

Every bit of coverage I've heard about Comey--both from the last 24 hours about the book, and for the last year--has mentioned Comey being fired every time.

[rufus_2]

Who should be the final arbiter of "100% true"? Should it be an elected position or an appointed position?

[kolpa]

What is your proposed definition and how would you apply the test in practice?

[rc_bhg]

"Must not intentionally report false information as truth."

Thus, lawsuites would be allowed if your org was found to be intentionally lying. But unless someone can prove you did it intentionally, they have no case.

Obviously you can lie all you want if you take the word "News" out of your name.

[chiefalchemist]

There are rules, regs & best practices (and licenses) for a slew of trades that are not the fourth leg (i.e., Fourth Estate) of a proper democracy. Electricians, plumbers, hair stylists and such come to mind. And while it does not have to be gov based, why not journalism? Can't these (pardon me) meat-heads police themselves?

Aside from news, journalism is another word that needs a proper and widely held definition. A blogger on the internet is not journalism. Lester Holt is not a journalist. Oprah is not a journalist. (Editorial: Shame on you 60 Minutes.)

I agree. It might not stop the lies, but it would draw a much needed line in the sand. Personally, I'm exhausted from trying to rationalize with people who get their information and thoughts from sources they presume are legit news and well-practiced journalism.

[nugi]

I struggle to name a single source that is not Signifigantly biased. But worse than ever, fewer orgs seem to speak with a single editorial voice. One NYT article will be well sourced and informative, and the next will be raving identity-politics hate-fuel without a single citation or fact. Even distinguishing by outfit is outdated. Perhaps I just need to follow more writers, but I worry of creating my own bubble. Its a tall order.

[794CD01]

If you don't create your own bubble, it means you're in one someone else created for you.

[tangent128]

Willful ignorance offers a pretty big loophole to that definition.

If you don't fact check information, nobody can say you know it's false.

[chiefalchemist]

Yes. Perfect actually. Then if you don't fact check it can't be presented as news.

I think also we could apply the (legal) concept of "reasonable and customary." If say the rest of the (media) industry reported X, Y and Z and you only did Y then that's not reasonable and customary.

No doubt there's grey area. But as it is, we're living in a "brown area" if you know what I mean ;)

[philwelch]

I don't think you're crazy; I just think there's an entire constitutional amendment in the way of what you're proposing, and it's one that I would prefer not to repeal or amend.

[saas_co_de]

A large amount of TV news is pure fabrication. The use of green screens, fake sound tracks, fake live shots, etc is just part of the biz. TV news is an entertainment product pretending to be a news product.