> Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech.
My response has long been that from the media, etc., I want solid
information, up to, say, at least common high school term paper writing standards with complete quotes, with context, with credible references to objective, original sources. Then I want the author to have a long established solid reputation.
In practice, that approach does not work very well. First, nearly nothing in the media meets such standards. Second, even with the high school standards, it is still too easy to manipulate, deceive, or lie to an audience.
My view of deception in politics is that it stands on a foundation of the audience wanting only headlines or very short articles. Then, writing deceptive material is easy.
It would appear, then, that at least for now, stopping the deception in politics would be easy since the deception depends on just no more than short news articles and, thus, should be easy to debunk for the fraction of the audience willing to read some material a little longer and more complete. At this point, until the means of deception react, there may be some potential via such longer materials.
And if found to have published misinformation, if one does not publish a retraction that is at least as prominent as the falsehood, one should suffer punitive consequences and be prohibited from being employed or contracted in any media organisation.
My response has long been that from the media, etc., I want solid information, up to, say, at least common high school term paper writing standards with complete quotes, with context, with credible references to objective, original sources. Then I want the author to have a long established solid reputation.
In practice, that approach does not work very well. First, nearly nothing in the media meets such standards. Second, even with the high school standards, it is still too easy to manipulate, deceive, or lie to an audience.
My view of deception in politics is that it stands on a foundation of the audience wanting only headlines or very short articles. Then, writing deceptive material is easy.
It would appear, then, that at least for now, stopping the deception in politics would be easy since the deception depends on just no more than short news articles and, thus, should be easy to debunk for the fraction of the audience willing to read some material a little longer and more complete. At this point, until the means of deception react, there may be some potential via such longer materials.