One final topic for tonight.
Something I have been wondering about recently, particularly since the recent Canadian federal election, is the best with lying by public officials in media coverage.
It seems that currently many news agencies just allow the lie to stand. Even if everyone present knows that the statement is a lie it is reported on as though it could be true.
"Earlier today so and so said X."
Occasionally, and only occasionally, someone might be found to provide a contrasting view. Of course as this person would typically come from an opposing camp consumers might be inclined to take the rebuttal with a grain of salt.
Of course what doesn't happen is that the statements are not labelled as lies or untruths by the news agency. Those not as familiar with the situation or those who are a little more gullible might not know that the information being transmitted is not to be taken seriously.
Members of the media seem so scared of being biased that they fail to perform the important task of separating fact from fiction. Of course, by failing to perform this task on a regular basis they make themselves much less valuable than they might be. In some fields of reporting I am almost convinced that the public is worse of with them as their primary purpose seems to be to give life to lies that would likely otherwise die a quick death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good question. This is a complex problem.
I would suggest that there be a mechnism, which there may well be either provincially or nationally in Canada, wherein one is may request of the Crown to revert to English Common Law regarding misfeasance or malfeasance (by public officials). In the US, this is still applicable in select States (Michigan being once such example).
At the Federal level, in the US, misfeasance, malfeasance or even nonfeasance cannot be charged as a crime, but it may serve as a basis for impeachment of a member of either the Executive or Judicial branch of government, which at least removes the person from office even if it won't send them to prison.
If the lie were told to a Federal investigator or before a grand jury, these would be prosecutable crimes.
That may be a start, but that doesn't deal with how we go about dealing with lies told by individuals who are not public officials, or how we go about labeling such statements as untruths.
As to how to deal with a non-official lying, perhaps the only remotely feasible way is to ask the Globe and Mail to start a column labelled "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" that would serve as something akin to a "fact check" on public issues of the day, inclusive of public statements by media types.
Were somethign like this initiated in the US, it would definitely have to include statements by people such as Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin and pretty much all network news anchors would be immediate fodder.
Otherwise, I suppose that at almost any time you could sue anyone (meaning any liar) for the emotional distress that he or she has reaped upon you -- emotional distress, mental anguish and any other obligatory manhood performance indicators that might be compromised as a result of the actions by Mr. or Ms Liar-liar Pants-on-fire.
Post a Comment