Yes they were. Blair is pretty much the worst example anyone could have used. He was nailed to the wall
If he seeks to stifle the news, then we will stand shoulder to shoulder in vigorous opposition to him, and of any policy which seeks it. Start at 5:15: [youtube]aR1yXR2E_M8[/youtube]
So false ads are ok too then? Pyramid schemes ok? Fraud? Lies that maliciously hurt people can and should be illegal.
Leaving out quotes that didn't happen from Defense Ministers that aren't Defense Ministers is a good place to start.
If an article comes out talking about "President-elect Hillary Clinton," is it "censorship" for the editor to say that's factually incorrect?
I don't think there's a practical way to "stop" or "do something about" the proliferation of fake news sites, aside from the MSM simply getting better at its job. Having said that, if there somehow were a way to make these sites hire editors to make sure the indisputable facts are correct, I don't think I would label that "censorship." Otherwise, it seems like all newspaper editors are problematic "censors" infringing upon First Amendment rights.
Who's arguing that? It is the job of news organizations to contradict, combat and correct everything that is in error. That's precisely their jobs. The mainstream media has, by and large, created this market of alleged "fake news" nonsense, we they went from reporting the news (read: their jobs), to actually, actively and intentionally participating in the news cycle. In so doing, they've leveraged their credibility to a vast number of people - last I saw something to this effect, the mainstream media had lower approval ratings than Congress - and who now simply disbelieve them, and look elsewhere for their news, instead. Rather than simply admitting this grievous error and working to correct it (Trump's presidency will prove them incapable of doing this, when all else fails), they now want to censor what they allege to be "fake news", so as to regain their place of absolute control of the news cycle and force everyone back to them, by default. It. Will. Not. Work. The People won't tolerate it, and if it gets too egregious, SCOTUS will prejudicially strike any attempt at it, and likely with only the most liberal of justices daring to dissent from it. Those suggesting it be done, and who have or will ever argue for the importance of freedom and liberty will be rightfully seen as both liars and fools, if ever argued again. It also shows me that the liberals have learned absolutely nothing. The playbook is broken. It is time to start over. This is not the place to begin. At all.
I agree with this. I don't really like that people have rejected the flawed mainstream media only to move toward something (arguably, but IMO) even more flawed, but that's the risk you run
People, in general, no longer want hard, fact based, straight up news. Increasingly, both liberals and conservatives want an echo chamber that affirms the beliefs they already hold. It's a sad state.
And this is part of the problem as it relates to the news. Liberals are guilty, sure, but conservatives are right there with them. Until the us and them mentality stops, there will always be a boogeyman. We've had this discussion. No need to have it again, but the people painting "them", whomever them turns out to be based on one's beliefs, as the ultimate evil is a big of a factor in news being how it is today. News organizations are owned by big corporations by and large. Corporations aren't interested in giving straight up news; they are interested in making money. They realize what I said earlier when I said folks want an echo chamber. It's like a comfort food. That's what sells. Greed is good. Intellectual laziness rules today.
I agree with this. And were the mainstream media outlets owned and operated by conservative-bent persons, you'd be inundated with similarly conservative-positive / shielding news. And that would be equally wrong. I don't like / personally agree with 65-70% of what NPR & PBS says, but they're probably the two who I trust the most (and I donate to each), and I don't think it coincidental that they are also the two least commercialized media outlets. To be sure, they are no more free of bias as anyone else, but they at least seem less zealous (militant?) about it, and will give some representation to the other side of most things. That's all I really ask for, not an absence of any bias (which is impossible), but at least a willingness to describe and give consideration to the other side, even in the absence of agreeing with or fully understanding it. The primaries and election cycles have done the most, and likelyirrevocable harm to CNN, NYT, HuffPo, 538 & WashPo, IMO. Google & Facebook should be in that group - and maybe at the top of the list, but won't be, because most simply don't realize how they manipulated content, and which to me, is infinitely more insidious and widespread damaging than the entirety of "fake news" sites.
