[joshlegs]

I like how OP commenter is essentially arguing that the government should regulate journalism, which fundamentally misunderstands the role of journalists -- that is, it is a direct check and balance on the government, except that it relies on the free market for competitive regulation. A journalism outlet which consistently gets things wrong SHOULD fail. Trying to regulate journalism massively fails not only in its intent to reduce errors, but also in its implementation.

[Karunamon]

One avenue that I think hasn't been fully explored/exhausted yet is false advertising regulation. Calling your product "news" carries a an entirely reasonable expectation that the product is free of falsehoods. (I'm not getting into bias, just absence of lies)

What would happen if we made that term (or synonyms like "journalism") protected advertising terms, so that you're required to either live up to it, or call yourself something else?

Another idea under this hypothetical law would be to have retractions/corrections carry the exact same amount of publicization as the original story. In other words, if you spend 10 minutes during primetime talking about something that turned out to be a lie, you get to spend 10 minutes on primetime about how you screwed up. You lie on a front page article that was up for a week? Your correction features in the same place for a week.

[gnopgnip]

Lies are still protected free speech in most circumstances. Additionally you have the problem of policing who decides what is illegal

[Clubber]

As is the press. Outside of libel laws, the press is constitutionally exempt from any type of regulation. As impotent as the press is today, I wouldn't want any political party to be able to decide what it can and can't say.

[Karunamon]

I'm not advocating that they can't say whatever they want.. only that they can't call it news if outright falsehoods are being passed. The same way you can't market your product as beef unless it meets certain standards, or your Bitcoin company as a bank, and so on.

This is a labeling/marketing law, nothing more. You are not excempt from those by way of being a media organization. Certainly it is not a speech restriction. As a bonus, it would allow competitors to market on that label since now it actually means something.