| > What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a ... license? This seems like begging the question. The issue here obviously isn't truth vs untruth, it is fealty to the regime vs opposition to the regime. All the evidence points in this direction, and there isn't a better case yet made in the opposite. Witness the example cited above: right-wing talk radio, famous for spreading untruthful info and agreeing with the regime, is let off scot-free. Or how the regime itself spread untruths about Alex Pretti after they killed him. That categorically debunks any purported "truth vs untruth" decision criteria and seems to confirm the fealty vs opposition decision criteria. Fun thought experiment: re-read this situation, but imagine it took place in russia, by putin's hand. Like seriously, what oppressive regime in modern history HASN'T had some variation of silencing the opposition "for broadcasting 'false information'"?: > On the morning of March 4, the last remaining independent news outlet in Russia — the award-winning Novaya Gazeta — announced the end of its reporting on the war in Ukraine in response to Russian government demands. > A new law that bans the “dissemination of knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces — and carries up to a 15-year penalty — was the final blow. [0] 0: https://niemanreports.org/putin-ukraine-russia-media/ |
The problem isn't simple, and there don't seem to be obvious answers - civilizations have been struggling with it since recorded history.
I assume you're not trying to make the point that exceeding authority is a characteristic limited to the current administration are you?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We've been asking this since at least 1st century Rome.
I think it's more important to evaluate systems, institutions and their effectiveness than specific politicians.