General Question

Pandora's avatar

Should News Channels that are mostly commentary, or for entertainment purposes, have a permanent warning label placed on the screen during broadcast?

Asked by Pandora (31660points) 1 week ago

I’m thinking a disclaimer, saying that they are more like an editorial and for entertainment, and not based on actual facts and may cause anger and make you believe lies and possibly a raging idiot.

Like the way, cigarettes come with a warning label.
I use the word gaslighting for things like Fox News. I know they are not the only station, but I feel their actual News won’t need the disclaimer. Just shows with people like Carson.
They should be forced to keep the disclaimer throughout the whole show.

Gaslighting: Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information.
The country is falling apart because of so many lies and the media is great with peddling them, and I feel the word News shouldn’t be used loosely. Only actual confirmed facts should be able to have the honor of being called News.

For instance. Russia and Ukraine are at war still, the sky is above our heads, the ground is below our feet, and although the weather isn’t always accurate, I’ll even accept that as confirmable.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

kritiper's avatar

A disclaimer at the top and bottom of the hour would be enough.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well, yeah.
Newspapers used to be arranged similarly. Some articles are in the “news.” Others are in “sports,” “editorial,” etc…

Jeruba's avatar

Let’s remember that you can take a set of verified facts and deploy them selectively, thereby producing a misleading or downright deceptive effect.

“A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.”
― William Blake

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Yes @Pandora Great idea.

gorillapaws's avatar

Well I can’t think of a single news source that’s given Marianne Williamson a fair shake in her candidacy announcement, so they should probably all get that banner. They all rally around the establishment and play these games about gatekeeping the public discourse around what is and isn’t “realistic” in a way that always happens to benefit shareholders and advertisers…

Acrylic's avatar

Sure, but it likely won’t do much good. Those who watch, say, Rachel Maddow will elect to believe her whether it be commentary, opinion, news, or otherwise. Even her “news” is propelled by personal opinion making it not so reliable. Still, her fans will listen, agree, and continue to watch to have their personal opinion validated instead of wanting unbiased news with no underlying agenda attached.

janbb's avatar

@Acrylic Just like those who watch Tucker Carlson.

flutherother's avatar

I don’t think a warning label would do any good. People would claim it was political. Some people simply prefer to have their views confirmed rather than hear the uncomfortable truth.

ragingloli's avatar

Who decides what channel gets which label? It is just destined to be abused.
That being said, Fox News definitely needs a “Kremlin affiliated Media” label.

Pandora's avatar

@flutherother True, you will always have that, but there are people who actually don’t know it’s an entertainment channel and thinks it is all real verified news. They also rely on their future viewers who still haven’t formed an opinion to be persuaded to believe they are real so they can gaslight future viewers. Years ago before Trump my mom use to believe everything on Fox News and I spent countless hours explaining how they twisted things and they are not reliable news source. And I would have to go on the internet to look up the actual stories and tell her what it was.
We put disclaimers on everything. Why not fake News shows? For goodness sakes, we even put labels on plastic packaging, “Warning, can cause suffocation of babies and children”. I mean, that’s how stupid our country is. Of course, you will always have those who are going to believe little green men have mated with humans and there are real Aliens among us.

@Jeruba, True. But then it becomes commentary and not based on facts. I remember reading the paper when I was a teen. Articles were just statements. The editorial was on a page all by itself. I think the opinions of journalists should not be considered valid. They can have an opinion but they can only present it if they actually have verifiable proof that something happened or didn’t happen. That someone said or didn’t say something.

Entropy's avatar

I would definitely say that they should, but I would not want the government passing a rule because if there’s a rule, someone has to enforce it and that means two negative things.

1) The decision is made by an unelected bureaucrat who is unlikely to apply the rule fairly or impartially.
2) The public has reason to get lazy and lose whatever skills it has to protect itself. For example, safety regulation while generally good means consumers no longer to any research for safety before buying something.

LadyMarissa's avatar

Although I like the idea, I don’t see it as a viable option. The warning on cigarette packages became law in 1965 (almost 60 years ago) & people still read it & say ”Oh, that won’t happen to me.” as they light up.

My other concern is WHO will decide & label the channels??? Fox admitted loud & proud that they are fake & ”Only a fool would believe them.” Yet people are still praising them as their news source when they want the truth!!! If the government gets to decide who gets which label, the right would label ALL the left’s channels & the left would label most if not all the right’s channels. I don’t trust any of them & I do my best to research through more neutral sources to determine what I really think.

Kraigmo's avatar

It’s better than nothing. But it will not have a huge effect. Because people will become desensitized to it. It will be co-opted and used all the time for “fun”. All the Trump Supporting Boomers on Facebook would post the label over their portraits and posts. Just out of irony, fun, and trying to “own the libs”.
And it could end up being shown over actual news shows, just to avoid lawsuits in case they get something wrong.
I suggest we need to expand the power of the FCC to apply to all Cable, Internet, Radio and TV news shows that attract more than 20,000 viewers.
The broadcasting of fake news should be illegal. It’s already illegal to incite riots.
And when Fox News hosted Opinion hosts that lied about the elections on purpose… they were inciting two kinds of riots: slow motion riots that form slowly. And fast motion riots like the on on the Big Jan 6.
Also, hosts and anchors should be made personally liable, if they lie about an election on purpose.
I’m trying to be practical. And these things can be done.

Morally, these anchors, businessmen, and hosts who pushed election lies should get the death penalty. They belong at the Federal Pen in Terre Haute awaiting the forced sunset of their lives for what they did. It is crime of the Century and the lack of outrage is proof that most Americans are intellectually/emotionally dead inside. This was the biggest fake news ever so far, but all the fake news is similarly harmful.

Pandora's avatar

@Kraigmo I couldn’t agree more. But I feel the FCC will continue to have its hands tied in Congress. I think you are right about people becoming desensitized to it. Personally, I think they should be off the Air if they advertise to be News and are not a legit News channel 24/7 . Many companies get sued over false advertising, why should they be any different?

JLeslie's avatar

I’ve said for many years Fox News should not be allowed to use the word news for their channel name.

I do think there should be a disclaimer on opinion shows. Who knows how much it will do. People will just agree with the idiotic harmful opinions anyway.

Jeruba's avatar

@Pandora, I was not talking about opinions. I was talking about the selective use of established facts in the service of bias, deception, manipulation, etc.—not presented as opinion.

Caravanfan's avatar

News channels are only for entertainment.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
LadyMarissa's avatar

^^ Excellent point!!!

Forever_Free's avatar

No. We should know enough about taking information in from any source. Who is going to police this? Who will decide? No thanks. I don’t need anyone to tell me.
Do I need a disclaimer on my cup that coffee is hot?
Do I need to have someone tell me not to wear my shirt when ironing it.

PLEASE, we are not all 5 years old and need to be told not to put small objects in our mouths.

We are supposed to trust the Police. Where has that gotten many lately?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^“Common” sense, or what that infers, isn’t so common…
But. I don’t suppose posted warnings/declarations are always helpful.
I don’tknowifthis is still a thing, but there used to be three step directions for opening a can of soda behind the tab. I remember thinking, if someone is so ignorant that they need directions to open a soda, why assume they know how to read…

NoMore's avatar

“Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that watching Fox can be hazardous to your mental health ”. Or, “Lies of this magnitude should only be told by professional Newscasters. Do not attempt this at home”.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther