Should news sources be rated?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Should news sources be rated?
41
Thu, 12-08-2011 - 10:11am

What do you think? Should news sources be rated? Should there be a "consumer guide" to news sources which ranks their accuracy and thoroughness? Or is it better to just leave the "caveat emptor" in place?

Should there be requirements in order to use the word "news" in the name of a program?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sat, 12-10-2011 - 8:56pm

People have to make the decision for themselves...and in the case of the news, they have.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2011
Sat, 12-10-2011 - 10:32pm

People have to make the decision for themselves...and in the case of the news, they have.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2011
Sat, 12-10-2011 - 10:33pm

Predictable.

Sadly, it is.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 12-11-2011 - 8:21am
LOL
"I like your jingle bells siggy!"
Thanks. I like to keep my siggy seasonal. (From Photobucket)

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 12-11-2011 - 10:35am

What's scary is that some people are dopey enough to believe that tripe.

Yes. Exactly. Some people believe tripe and can not tell the difference between truth and tripe. My question is: is that a problem? Do some people need a rating system to tell them what is likely to be accurate vs what is probably made up or exaggerated.

You mean like MSNBC?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 12-11-2011 - 10:38am

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 12-11-2011 - 11:00am

previous post: Hypothetically if some very weathly person decided to start a network news show and used it as a mouthpiece for his political agenda and if the network became popular, then people might naively be "brainwashed" over time by the rich guy's agenda. Kinda like a political infommercial.

Let's say for purposes of the debate, this guys name is Max Maleficent and his political agenda, among other things including (1)updating the Constitution because it is old and he wants to put the religious ambiguity to rest by eliminating any references to God or Christ. He also wants to define Corporations as not people .He does not want competition after his party is in power. (2) He believes that some gifted people are able to tell whether or not a fetus as young as 10-12 weeks is going to make a significant contribution to the world. Before any fetus can be aborted, one of these gifted people (I'll call them Seyers) must verify that the fetus is not one who would have gone on to make an important contribution to the world.

Hopefully, this made up guy, Max Maleficent and his agenda to change the constitution and to implement Seyers to reduce abortions, will be far fetched enough to seem made up, but close enough to the outskirts of reality to serve as a hypothetical example for debate. I call his political party the Hawk Party.

Recap: Max Malefient is a fictional corporate mogul who decides to start a News Network, Nouveau,

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2011
Mon, 12-12-2011 - 1:44am

What's scary is that some people are dopey enough to believe that tripe.

Yes. Exactly. Some people believe tripe and can not tell the difference between truth and tripe.

We learned that bitter lesson when Obama actually got elected.

My question is: is that a problem? Do some people need a rating system to tell them what is likely to be accurate vs what is probably made up or exaggerated.

Is it a problem?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 12-12-2011 - 10:31am

"People have the freedom to get all of their information from biased sources"

Regrettably many don't realize the source is biased.... That's the problem.

"Hypothetically if some very wealthy person decided to start a network news show..."

If it were only hypothetical an example the Murdock empire. (We can only hope the the scandal in Britain has put a crimp in it's expansion.) Another example Berlusconi's hold on the Italian media. (Maybe scandals & his resignation have dwindled his hold.)

Then we all remember Jeff Gannon......

>"When President Bush bypassed dozens of eager reporters from nationally and internationally recognized news outlets and selected Jeff Gannon to pose a question at his Jan. 26 news conference, Bush’s recognition bestowed instant credibility on the apparently novice reporter, as well as the little-known conservative organization he worked for at the time, called Talon News. That attention only intensified when Gannon used his nationally televised press conference time to ask Bush a loaded, partisan question — featuring a manufactured quote that mocked Democrats for being “divorced from reality."<

Fake news, fake reporter
Why was a partisan hack, using an alias and with no journalism background, given repeated access to daily White House press briefings?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 12-12-2011 - 10:34am
"it doesn't take long for intelligent people to figure out it out and reject their liberal message."
I think you proved a point. ;)

 


Photobucket&nbs