Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Argument for being a business like any other: They are not non profits. They need to make money to survive. Generally, if publicly owned, they're bound by a duty to "shareholder value".

Argument against being a business like any other: They have a special protection against government tampering built into the constitution. This implies the legislators of the time assumed the institutions of media were worth protecting, and that any threat would come from government. This also implies an assumption that media owners are naturally civic minded, and have their readers/viewers best interests at heart.



Of course, they do not.



The most important take away, is that media enjoys a special protection, that other businesses do not. That, in itself, is the strongest proof that they should NOT be considered a business, like any other. To have a special protection that other businesses do not enjoy, while being entirely self serving, is what you call a RACKET.

By legislators of the time are you referring to the founding fathers and the constitution? Because James Madison and Thomas Jefferson owned a newspaper. Maybe the protections written in were mostly self serving rather than altruistic.

There is nothing inherently wrong with news companies being a for-profit business. When news companies start making up bullshit or skewing the truth to appeal to certain demographics, the onus is on The People to recognize crap when they see it, and not be complete retards.

Unfortunately that's impossible for the average person, but the media being allowed to say whatever it wants in whatever color it wants is a necessary evil for freedom of the press existing.

That said, when you talk about protections, what specifically are you referring to?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
There is nothing inherently wrong with news companies being a for-profit business. When news companies start making up bullshit or skewing the truth to appeal to certain demographics, the onus is on The People to recognize crap when they see it, and not be complete retards.

Unfortunately that's impossible for the average person, but the media being allowed to say whatever it wants in whatever color it wants is a necessary evil for freedom of the press existing.

That said, when you talk about protections, what specifically are you referring to?

I mostly agree with this. I don't want more regulation but it's possible that The Media needs to be regulated.

A compromise is a label that comes in 3 forms:

1. Extremely Fact Driven news Coverage: Class A Media
2. Mixed between Bias and Facts: Class C Media
3. Sensationalist, little facts represented without bias: Class F Media (All those who refuse to get assessed would get a Class F so tabloids could avoid the hefty fees and stay at a Class F where they know they are).

CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews would get a Class C label. NPR and PBS would get a Class C or a Class A label. Almost no one would get a Class A label.

The assessors could come from Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Anarchists - get equal representation to assess the media (determined by Pew, Rasmussen, etc.). The Media would have to foot the bill to get assessed. This would pay for the regulatory body's costs.

And the regulation could require that they state that they are Class X Media, verbally, every Half Hour of broadcast. For example, "This is Don Lemon with Class C Media CNN tonight...). And they'd have to display it under their station logo. Each assessment would last 2 years with the possibility of appeal after 6 months of carrying the label. For written media, it would appear on their cover and displayed under their logo for the entire 2 year period.

Watch as News Media magically cleans itself up and the Press courses you studied in college where it says all sides or both sides are given a fair representation in the News, actually becomes true (I remember those courses...even then, I knew that concept was full of shit).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I mostly agree with this. I don't want more regulation but it's possible that The Media needs to be regulated.

A compromise is a label that comes in 3 forms:

1. Extremely Fact Driven news Coverage: Class A Media
2. Mixed between Bias and Facts: Class C Media
3. Sensationalist, little facts represented without bias: Class F Media (All those who refuse to get assessed would get a Class F so tabloids could avoid the hefty fees and stay at a Class F where they know they are).

CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews would get a Class C label. NPR and PBS would get a Class C or a Class A label. Almost no one would get a Class A label.

The assessors could come from Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Anarchists - get equal representation to assess the media (determined by Pew, Rasmussen, etc.). The Media would have to foot the bill to get assessed. This would pay for the regulatory body's costs.

And the regulation could require that they state that they are Class X Media, verbally, every Half Hour of broadcast. For example, "This is Don Lemon with Class C Media CNN tonight...). And they'd have to display it under their station logo. Each assessment would last 2 years with the possibility of appeal after 6 months of carrying the label. For written media, it would appear on their cover and displayed under their logo for the entire 2 year period.

Watch as News Media magically cleans itself up and the Press courses you studied in college where it says all sides or both sides are given a fair representation in the News, actually becomes true (I remember those courses...even then, I knew that concept was full of shit).

I think there should be two separate ratings. One is for factual reporting, the other for bias.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think there should be two separate ratings. One is for factual reporting, the other for bias.

And then aggregate those two scores into a Class?

Or do you want something like

"Class C2"?


Like this:


Fact Rating
1. Extremely Fact Driven news Coverage: Class A Media
2. Mixed Fact coverage - some sensationalism and some misrepresentation of the facts: Class C Media
3. Sensationalist, little facts represented: Class F Media (All those who refuse to get assessed would get a Class F so tabloids could avoid the hefty fees and stay at a Class F where they know they are).

Bias Rating:
1. Almost no bias at all. When it is present, it is made clear before being presented (such as an opinion segment): Class 1 Media
2. Bias and fairness are heavily mixed, almost no clarification presented on bias when presented: Class 2 Media
3. Extreme bias with little fairness and tempering: Class 3 Media (All those who refuse to get assessed would get a Class 3 so tabloids could avoid the hefty fees and stay at a Class F where they know they are).

I would put CNN as a C3 or an F3. Foxnews as a C3.

Also, side note: the more I work out, the more I see the news at the gym. So the better shape I am in, the more buttmad I am at the American Media being shit. lol

So if you see me looking especially buff, I'm probably furious. haermm

Also I'm sure you've seen a movie or tv show where it shows a factory and it has a sign that says "Days since last accident" and there is a number next to it.

Every media outlet at the end of every article should need to put a "days since last fake news" sign, and then provide a link to the last fake news they pushed.

Muhahahaha!