Make false statements said by media illegal

So every time i watch the main news someone quotes a fact of a statistic that is wrong or says something that is just incorrect in so many ways. The problem with this is people have a habit of thinking that everything said by them is true. So i for one think that they should pass a law or a bill that will fine a major media group when they make a false statement or something similar.

Just for some back ground on this there are a large number of times that this has happened like in the case of George Zimmerman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Media_coverage the Misleading audio editing by NBC.
This has happened quite a bit yet very little happens to discourage this in the media other then maybe oh were sorry it happened they aren't fined or anything for this so they will just keep doing it. So what does everyone else think about this also i know that the first amendment helps to guard them but i disagree with it protecting them and wish it to be changed.

You do realize a lot of the media and the government is in this together, right? They're the ones pushing for the agendas and ideas, look at the Sandy Hook massacre, left and right on the media "durr hurr lets ban guns and screw the constitution!" and the government is actually okay with that.

But oh no, let's forbid any conservative news reports. The bias of the left-wing is huge right now and probably the worst it has ever gotten to begin with. It's "always true news if you are on their side" now anyway.

As for the people, they are radicals who agree 100% with any moves the government and the media helping them does, if anyone falls out of that 100% accept everything range, they are traitors and the enemy.

Radicals who think everyone who doesn't agree with them are traitorous enemies of state, huh?
What does that make all the people who don't agree with Obama's policies and call him "Hitler", "Communist", "Socialist", or even accusing him of not being a natural-born U.S. citizen? Reasonable people with no bias at all?

So the law is passed and a new government agency is created or the power of an already existing agency is expanded. So we'll have the government deciding for us what is true and what is false, especially in areas where data is grey or easily misconstrued.

So we've effectively handed over our right to freedom of the press to the government. A government which is heavily influenced by corporations and special interest groups (remember those organizations fund almost all election campaigns). What's the result? Corporations and special interest groups now have the ability to influence the information we get and where we can get it.

Before you say, "FPoD, we all know that couldn't happen", I recommend you look at the Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America

additional link
additional link 2
additional link 3

Our Government is heavily influenced by corporations which means corporations have a say in how our laws are enacted and how they are used. I don't know about you but, I don't want Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Disney and oil companies telling me what is true and what is false.

A lot of people are already believing that they all have to have the same beliefs and always be loyal to their party, doesn't matter the issue.

The First Amendment already clears that up, it's happened for every president in the past and no one can do anything about it.

I'm just showing you the other side of the same coin. You complain about people (that you don't agree with) viewing the side they don't agree with as traitors and enemies but honestly both sides do that.

I was too biased at the moment and been facing this kind of news lately. You're right, I should clear up my mind on the subject a bit.

Reasons like these why I have been trying to become more neutral.

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't really see false statements as much of an issue; On the occasion that they make one, they're called out on and criticized for it. My major complaint against the mainstream media is that they deceptively withhold facts that have significant importance regarding the issue. That's not a false statement, but it certainly has a similar effect.



[color=#2e1a6b]Don't they already do that? at least to some extent

Regulatory capture, access to public monopolies, Market distortions as corporations buy subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, etc that will promote their business/industry and yet harm the competition.

Therefore, corporations are essentially able to bargain money and power away from the citizens and into their own coffers.



>Implying that it is because they lacked corporate domination is why the committed genocide.



To an extent they do, however I'm more concerned with groups like A.L.E.C. (ALEC) writing our laws. Do a Google search if you're interested.

The best we can do is not consider them journalist and stop giving them views. That or we can have people voice complaints, if they see a big backlash, they'll apologize.

Can't sue everything we don't like, even if they distort the facts.

Unfortunately FPOD is right, the government has been thoroughly perverted by corporations... in fact it has even been *replaced* as far as monetary policy goes:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

Me and FPOD disagree on whether government regulation can be good, but we both agree that if it's not enforced fairly (i.e. we're all equal, but some people - or corporations - are more equal then the rest of us), then they do more harm then good.

Another "fun fact":

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213?print=true

While non violent pot users are routinely stripped of all their earthly possession and thrown into jail, the HSBC bank executives could walk away scott free after laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act). Well, almost... the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement.

If you just argue that it's bad for government to have x power. Most people that lean "left" will just scoff as they tend to be devout followers of the church of state. I have met many people of the "left" persuasion who believe the gospel that only government can elevate out conditions and that "private" anything is so evil that this is a typical board meeting. However, if you can explain to them how government has become the catamite for corporations then, they are more open to restricting government.

Over here, it seems the problem isn't false statements or witholding information, it's more a problem of the media has a major bias towards the government. They seem to be on their side. They emphasize what they say rather than what we say. Take the London riots: they touched on a few subjects of why people were rioting, then proceeded to watch David Cameron and his minions continuosly say "Mindless criminality". Reasons for mindless criminality: too many cuts so people fought back (some did a sit in inside a store and political policing, where they trick you, fucked them up), people were targeting certain companies due to them having insane debt and not needing to pay them off. Obviously there was mindless criminality in the fray.

There were multiple reasons as to why these things happen, the media seems to brush past it and look for the closest politician instead of nearby citizen Good thing I ignore the news often. I'm curious how the media near portrayed the riots.

YEAH IT WOULD NEVER WORK OUT DO TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Freedom of speech is a blessing in disguise . AIN'T that a bitch mother fucking tuna smelling cunt eaters them bastards! media kills. that is a purely true statement media kills look it up bud.