In Trinidad the media group that issues a false report has to compensate the 'victim' they made look in the wrong or in the bad. How is it for your country?
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
Unfortunately in the US there is not an obligation for compensation (that I am aware of) when the media has made false accusations, unless the person falsely accused sues for defamation of character. Most times it seems a public apology is all that is offered and the person is expected to just accept it and move on.
International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 24.1%
I think that a media outlet, such as a newspaper CAN be sued for damages for a clearly libelous story, in which case they can be required to pay compensation. But I don't think this route is used very often.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
"In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
-- Justice Black. NYT v. US. 403 US 713
EDITORIAL: IT'S TIME FOR A SHIELD LAW
In order for democracy to thrive, a free press must be able to independently examine government and uncover abuses. That has long been a staple of the American system, where reporters have come to be unofficially known as the "fourth estate."
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...06749%2C00.html
Lawmaker wants camera crews barred from combat theater
The lawmaker responsible for delaying by 24 hours the media's reporting of combat deaths is now pushing for camera crews to be banned from covering direct combat actions.
Ref. https://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-526322.php
I know on a local level, our media will make an apology if they used misleading facts about somebody. I don't know if they do it by law, or if it's because our two news channels have such a competition they want to stay in people's good graces. When I was in journalism we were taught to always make sure our information was accurate because it reflected bad on us.
I, personally, would check my information out because I did not want to belittle anybody. I read a story once in our local paper that two teachers from a rival high school wrote about our high school. My high school was 75 years old at the time, and we still had the original cafeteria, the original gym, and a lot of the classrooms were falling apart. The two teachers, it was an editorial, completely bashed our school because we were getting around 4 million dollars for a new gym, cafeteria, girl's softball field, and a new Special Education building because the old one was not handicap accessible...which is odd because that was what the building was for.
So, I wrote an article in our school newspaper rebutting it. Instead of making false accusations, I went and talked to the administrator at our school who was in charge of the decisions made for construction on the school. She also got in touch with the local school board and got a history of construction history for the other school, as well as for our school.
As it turned out, the other school had at least two buildings that had been either built or reconstructed for the last twenty some off years. Whereas in twenty years we had only gotten a new music building and a library. We'd had basic maintance, but nothing major.
All the high schools send their newspaper out to the other high school newspaper staffs. From my understanding, those two teachers got a hold of it and weren't too happy. Had I thought about it, I probably would have sent it in the local paper.
If not for the sake of your media organization, I think people should do it also to cover themselves. If they don't have the heart to make sure that their news is going to hurt somebody else, then they should at least make sure that it's factual so they aren't the ones who end up looking completely stupid.
Last night, I listened to a little bit of Sean Hannity's radio show. He featured an interview with Brian Williams, who replaces Tom Brokaw on the NBC news starting tonight.
During the interview, Sean asked Brian about his views about media bias in the major media outlets. Brian proceeded to relate a story about how he worked with Brit Hume (now of Fox News) years ago, and how they would sit down at lunch time and tear apart various news stories. Brian admitted that there was a distinct bias shown, but he also said that the bias (in his opinion) has decreased over the last few years.
An example he gave went something like this:
"Conservative Firebrand Newt Gingrich Faces Up Against Massechusetts Senator Edward Kennedy". This would have been an actual headline from 10 or 15 years ago.
Now look at the words used in such a headline. Gingrich was described as a "conservative firebrand", yet Kennedy was described only as a senator. The conservative is labelled, the liberal is not.
This brings to mind the often repeated assertion that to the media, "right wing" refers only to conservatives, and is usually a modifier for some other descriptive word such as "fringe", "activist", "kook", "bigot", etc. However, the phrase "left wing" ONLY refers to a part of an airplane. In other words, in the view of the mainstream media (MSM), anything on the "left wing" of politics is actually mainstream.
Okay, rant mode off.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%