DRAFT:Separation of Comment and Fact in the Media

[Hetairos]

Separation of Comment and Fact in the Media
Furtherment of Democracy

ACKNOWLEDGING that the media has a power and responsibility to transmit information between the politicians and the people.
NOTING that some parts of the media has abused that power, by using unsubstantiated 'evidence' and 'facts' to distort the view of the politicians that the people have, in accordance with the views of those constructing the article/form of media, and that this, by its very purpose, has the ability to persuade citizens to hold a certain view of a politician/politicians.
BELIEVING that by making it clearer what is fact and what is comment, will allow the people to make a clearer and more informed choice regarding who to support and vote for.
BELIEVING that this legislation will not prevent the media from expressing their opinions in accordance with freedom of speech.

THEREFORE
1. Proposes that all articles or other forms of news media must begin with a brief, clear, factually accurate description of the event, containing all relevant information, which can be backed up with substantial evidence in court if necessary.
2. Proposes that any company or person which violates this should be penalised and fined in accordance with the laws of the country they are in.

[Meekinos]

This would take away the rights of media outlets to decide how it wants to structure its format.

While it is important to have just the facts, this would go too far in preventing the different outlets in presenting the facts.

Would this prevent the use of witness statements in news reports? After all, witness statements would contain a level of bias which would no doubt influence someone not familiar with the event. Or would there be a certain rule that applies to this? It could mean controlling speech...

[Hetairos]

This would take away the rights of media outlets to decide how it wants to structure its format.

While it is important to have just the facts, this would go too far in preventing the different outlets in presenting the facts.

Would this prevent the use of witness statements in news reports? After all, witness statements would contain a level of bias which would no doubt influence someone not familiar with the event. Or would there be a certain rule that applies to this? It could mean controlling speech...

But it would not prevent the media from saying what they want, it would just make sure they could not portray their opinions as fact. The first section of the news report would be fairly brief, and, let's face it, many people just read the first few paragraphs of an article without reading the whole thing. The second section could be whatever the writer wishes, so that would include direct witness reports and in depth analysis, or even just more facts, which is what the media does now.

[Hetairos]

This is not designed to be restricting free speech, rather giving the ordinary people an ability to clearly see what is fact and what is opinion.

[Linux and the X]

It may not be intended to restrict free speech, but it certainly does do so.

[Hetairos]

It may not be intended to restrict free speech, but it certainly does do so.

But it doesn't prevent people saying what they wish. Providing the media begins reporting on a news story by making the facts behind what they are saying clear to everyone, they can say whatever they like in the rest of the piece, so long as it isn't libellous. The media now has the power to influence people's political views by spreading unjustifiable, barely legal roumours, which have almost no factual basis whatsoever.

[Linux and the X]

Free speech is not merely the right to say what you want, but the right not to say what you don't want. By mandating that "all articles or other forms of news media must begin with a brief, clear, unbiased description of the event, which can be backed up with factual evidence in court if necessary", you are restricting free speech.

[Hetairos]

Free speech is not merely the right to say what you want, but the right not to say what you don't want. By mandating that "all articles or other forms of news media must begin with a brief, clear, unbiased description of the event, which can be backed up with factual evidence in court if necessary", you are restricting free speech.

So are you saying that journalists should be allowed to make completely unfounded statements which are there only to persuade people to support the party/policies they support?

[Linux and the X]

Barring any agreements they've made otherwise, of course they should be allowed to.

[The Animal Union]

I side with Linus and the X.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Barring any agreements they've made otherwise, of course they should be allowed to.

And they already are, under Resolution #30. Therefore, this proposal is an illegal Contradiction and any discussion of such is moot.

[Hetairos]

OK, I completely understand your points. But Let me explain why I made this proposal.
Advertisers are not allowed to make unjustified claims to sell products, by misleading their audience. But they ARE allowed to use persuasive devices to encourage people to do so. So, journalists should therefore not be able to make unjustified claims to sell a political party/viewpoint, and to get votes for a party, and similar rules should apply to both. We already have libel laws for journalists, which is similar to this idea .
Perhaps the way I structured this proposal is not ideal, but I think the basic premise of not allowing journalists to make completely unsubstantiated claims is valid.

[Linux and the X]

Advertisers are not allowed to make unjustified claims to sell products, by misleading their audience.

They're not? Which resolution established that?

We already have libel laws for journalists, which is similar to this idea .

Who is this "we"? The WA? I don't remember a resolution stating such.

[Kelssek]

So, journalists should therefore not be able to make unjustified claims to sell a political party/viewpoint, and to get votes for a party, and similar rules should apply to both... Perhaps the way I structured this proposal is not ideal, but I think the basic premise of not allowing journalists to make completely unsubstantiated claims is valid.

We would suggest that any (serious) media outlet in which journalists routinely make completely unsubstantiated claims would soon lose credibility and readership, and in all likelihood cease to exist entirely. On the other hand, if your issue is merely with editorialising, I would suggest there isn't much hope of trying to stop it without severely trespassing on free expression. In all this, you have also not considered investigative journalism.

Leaving aside the very valid question of this proposal's legality, of course, I would also say in general that holding journalists to the standard of evidence required in court is rather extreme.

[Hetairos]

So, journalists should therefore not be able to make unjustified claims to sell a political party/viewpoint, and to get votes for a party, and similar rules should apply to both... Perhaps the way I structured this proposal is not ideal, but I think the basic premise of not allowing journalists to make completely unsubstantiated claims is valid.

We would suggest that any (serious) media outlet in which journalists routinely make completely unsubstantiated claims would soon lose credibility and readership, and in all likelihood cease to exist entirely. On the other hand, if your issue is merely with editorialising, I would suggest there isn't much hope of trying to stop it without severely trespassing on free expression. In all this, you have also not considered investigative journalism.

Leaving aside the very valid question of this proposal's legality, of course, I would also say in general that holding journalists to the standard of evidence required in court is rather extreme.

So you think that freedom of speech is an absolute right, and no country should have any form of libel laws? While I agree with freedom of speech, I wouldn't go that far.
As for your argument about such forms of media being dismissed, while that may well be true for mainstream media such as newspapers, it is definitely not true for minor forms of media. They are dismissed by many, and they therefore recieve no criticism, but they are still around making these claims, and by their very purpose, they persuade some people to hold their views.
ANd if there are no laws saying that advertisers cannot make unsubstantiated claims about products, then I hope there will be soon.

While I admit that the proposal I stated is a little draconian, I think the basic premise that journalists should not be able to make unsubstantiated claims is sound. Perhaps this could become like a libel law if expanded and altered.

[Linux and the X]

So you think that freedom of speech is an absolute right, and no country should have any form of libel laws?

That's correct. The official line is that any infringement of even one right, no matter how small, opens the floodgates for the complete annihilation of all rights.

While I agree with freedom of speech, I wouldn't go that far.

Then you don't have to. But we don't want to see this forced on all members. Indeed, if this reaches quorum, my nation will be forced to decide if we can exploit a loophole my office noticed. If it is decided it cannot be used, we will be forced to withdraw from the Assembly should it appear this will pass. (We hope, of course, that this will not come close to passing.)

Regards,

Fred P. Shepperd

[Gnoria]

Any competent reader can figure out what is fact and what is opinion. "Mayor assassinated" is a fact. "Mayor sucks" is an opinion.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

[Maerngau]

We suggest that you adopt one of the following strategies:

1) Institute a "fainess" doctrine wherein all major political groups get equal air time to express their views.

2) Encourage a multiplicity of media sources

3) EDUCATE YOUR CITIZENS to think critically.

Any of these would be a more effective way to achieve your goal than what you have proposed.

[Hetairos]

Any competent reader can figure out what is fact and what is opinion. "Mayor assassinated" is a fact. "Mayor sucks" is an opinion.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

But unfortunately, it's not only the competant readers who can vote and hold opinions. And often, opinion is disguised as fact. That's my point.

I think there is a deeper question here about freedom of speech. If you really think that there should be no laws against freedom of speech, what about inciting racial hatred? Without that law, any country could descend into anarchy. Or false advertising--people should know exactly what they're buying before they buy it.

[Hetairos]

We suggest that you adopt one of the following strategies:

1) Institute a "fainess" doctrine wherein all major political groups get equal air time to express their views.

2) Encourage a multiplicity of media sources

3) EDUCATE YOUR CITIZENS to think critically.

Any of these would be a more effective way to achieve your goal than what you have proposed.

I'm not saying that these are bad ideas, I just think we need something to prevent extremists from gaining influence by persuading those who are less intelligent, or who do nnot properly read forms of media--often just the headlines.

I support freedom of speech, but I want people to be able to decide who to vote for without being effectively indoctrinated by extremists, who do not recieve any major criticism from other media. And even this form of regulation doesn't work--in the UK, almost no form of media supports the far-right BNP, and yet they still get many many votes.

[Linux and the X]

If you really think that there should be no laws against freedom of speech, what about inciting racial hatred? Without that law, any country could descend into anarchy.

There's a law against inciting racial hatred?

Or false advertising--people should know exactly what they're buying before they buy it.

Indeed. Which is why you'd be pretty stupid to believe the person selling it.

in the UK

"The" UK? There's many, you should tell us which one.

almost no form of media supports the far-right BNP, and yet they still get many many votes.

So even without media support, they still get "many many votes". Your proposal helps... how, exactly?

Regards,

Fred P. Shepperd

[Grays Harbor]

Advertisers are not allowed to make unjustified claims to sell products, by misleading their audience.

They're not? Which resolution established that?

We already have libel laws for journalists, which is similar to this idea .

Who is this "we"? The WA? I don't remember a resolution stating such.

Nations do have laws other than just resolutions passed by the WA.

It is our opinion that being required to give unbiased facts prior to stating opinions is not an abridgement of Freedom of Speach. If an argument for or against an issue is not strong enough to stand up to the facts of an issue without resorting to ommission, spin or paraphrasing them to appeal to emotion rather than fact, then that argument is essentially baseless. Should this resolution come up for a vote, we would support it.

[Hetairos]

So even without media support, they still get "many many votes". Your proposal helps... how, exactly?

I meant mainstream media.

There's a law against inciting racial hatred?

When did I say that? I didn't say everyone has it, I just suggested it would be a good idea.

[Meekinos]

But unfortunately, it's not only the competant readers who can vote and hold opinions. And often, opinion is disguised as fact. That's my point.

It seems the good ambassador is making an erroneous assumption in that nations with elections follow the same general principles in allowing everyone over the age of majority to vote.

While there is no need to discuss Meekinosian domestic policy on voting, we do wish to point out that there are nations where only those deemed competent would be allowed to vote in the first place. Those lacking the necessary capacity would not be able to vote and whether or not they are influenced is irrelevant since they would be unable to vote in the first place.

I think there is a deeper question here about freedom of speech. If you really think that there should be no laws against freedom of speech, what about inciting racial hatred? Without that law, any country could descend into anarchy. Or false advertising--people should know exactly what they're buying before they buy it.

Once again, you're assuming all nations share the same laws and legal principles that you do. Meekinosian advertising laws, for example, are quite lax compared to those in other nations. Citizens of less capitalistic nations would balk at how liberal our advertising laws are.

I'm not saying that these are bad ideas, I just think we need something to prevent extremists from gaining influence by persuading those who are less intelligent, or who do nnot properly read forms of media--often just the headlines.

Define 'extremist'. Anyone who doesn't share your views? What is it exactly?

Less intelligent than...?

This point is nothing but vague opinion supported by a generalization.

I support freedom of speech, but I want people to be able to decide who to vote for without being effectively indoctrinated by extremists, who do not recieve any major criticism from other media. And even this form of regulation doesn't work--in the UK, almost no form of media supports the far-right BNP, and yet they still get many many votes.

People will be influence, regardless of whether or not news media outlets are sanitized.

I was following you up to the part about UK - which is what exactly? BNP? I'm gathering this is something to do with your region; I don't quite follow the relevance of the ambassador's point here.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve must wonder if it's possible for there to be any such thing as an "unbiased" reporting of the facts. Even the selection of which facts to report, in what order, and the connections between the facts reported will have bias involved. What facts are important to the story, and what facts are not? Who is to decide what is a fact, or not?

It is a general principle of journalism that "unbiased" does not exist. Saying "the car drove into the crowd" conveys a different meaning (read: bias) than "the car crashed into the crowd", which has yet a different meaning than "the car ran over individuals". Who, then, is to determine the lexicon of sufficiently unbiased words that a news outlet would be able to use?

In any event, this Proposal would be trivial to circumvent. All that would be necessary is for the media outlet to announce that all news contained is that outlet's interpretation (read: opinion) of the events. And the outlet would be saying that in complete honesty and truth.