I'm all for the Constitution...

[Monte1076]

And our Amendments. I do think it's time for a "Truth in Reporting" Act. Just like we have to have "truth in advertising".

Media is supposed to be fair and impartial in its reporting. If you look at people's general opinions of the major news networks, you get the idea that isn't the case.

I also think "Truth in advertising" should apply to political ads. No candidate or candidate proxy (like a PAC or SuperPAC) should be allowed to put anything in an ad that is intentionally misleading or is provably untrue.

I use the example of a candidate who kicks puppies. If Candidate A claims that Candidate B likes to kick puppies when nobody's around, they'd better have irrefutable proof of it. Otherwise, it doesn't go in an ad. And "Somebody told me Candidate B likes kicking puppies" doesn't count.

[Youngcoach123]

3 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

And our Amendments. I do think it's time for a "Truth in Reporting" Act. Just like we have to have "truth in advertising".

Media is supposed to be fair and impartial in its reporting. If you look at people's general opinions of the major news networks, you get the idea that isn't the case.

I also think "Truth in advertising" should apply to political ads. No candidate or candidate proxy (like a PAC or SuperPAC) should be allowed to put anything in an ad that is intentionally misleading or is provably untrue.

I use the example of a candidate who kicks puppies. If Candidate A claims that Candidate B likes to kick puppies when nobody's around, they'd better have irrefutable proof of it. Otherwise, it doesn't go in an ad. And "Somebody told me Candidate B likes kicking puppies" doesn't count.

Your advocating for state run media. When the gov starts telling them what they can and can’t write because “truth” you are going directly against the constitution.

[Monte1076]

1 hour ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Your advocating for state run media. When the gov starts telling them what they can and can’t write because “truth” you are going directly against the constitution.

Had not considered that perspective. Thank you.

That said, we live in a world now where mass media (and mainstream media) can basically present "news" as whatever they want it to be. Oftentimes blurring the line between news and opinion. To me, that's dangerous as well.

[Youngcoach123]

5 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

Had not considered that perspective. Thank you.

That said, we live in a world now where mass media (and mainstream media) can basically present "news" as whatever they want it to be. Oftentimes blurring the line between news and opinion. To me, that's dangerous as well.

No doubt, I think the free market can handle that. Strip their press pass for White House and turn off your tv. 

[osup116]

4 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Your advocating for state run media. When the gov starts telling them what they can and can’t write because “truth” you are going directly against the constitution.

True but much of what is on T.V. is opinion not news reporting. If they state it is opinion vs fact from beginning I'm ok with it. If not they need to held accountable.

 

If you or I stood on the corner the bank was on and was yelling  the president of the bank embezzled from it, We would be sued. Telling the judge we have a right to our opinion is not going to do any good.

This goes on both sides - Fox has Hannity and a couple of others. CNN and MSNBC has all of their shows

[DaveTV1]

7 hours ago, Monte1076 said:

And our Amendments. I do think it's time for a "Truth in Reporting" Act. Just like we have to have "truth in advertising".

Media is supposed to be fair and impartial in its reporting. If you look at people's general opinions of the major news networks, you get the idea that isn't the case.

I also think "Truth in advertising" should apply to political ads. No candidate or candidate proxy (like a PAC or SuperPAC) should be allowed to put anything in an ad that is intentionally misleading or is provably untrue.

I use the example of a candidate who kicks puppies. If Candidate A claims that Candidate B likes to kick puppies when nobody's around, they'd better have irrefutable proof of it. Otherwise, it doesn't go in an ad. And "Somebody told me Candidate B likes kicking puppies" doesn't count.

Laws are already on the books to prevent this, but that doesn't mean man will adhere to those laws.  

[Monte1076]

1 hour ago, DaveTV1 said:

Laws are already on the books to prevent this, but that doesn't mean man will adhere to those laws.  

If that's the case, why aren't we hearing about fines and/or legal troubles (aside from kids like Nick Sandmann)?