Although I resent Fox News more than any broadcasting channel for misinforming people and it's political subjectiveness, I think a ban on (fake) information is going too far.
In my opinion it is the moral duty of an informative broadcasting channel to publish solely truthful, objective reports, but it can never be a legal duty. In fact, that would be extremely complicated in legal terms: Who gets to decide what is the truth, because if the media won't, who will? The government? That would result in goverment-controlled media, or more specifically: propaganda and censorship. That all opposes freedom of speech, because lying is also a right.
The pledge for a democracy are a well-informed population and varied and free media which are responsible for information. The quote of Evelyn Beatrice Hall illustrates my argument: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
And besides, Fox News may be the worst, but it's not as if every other news channel aims for the most objective news. It's about the ratings for most of them.
The only real solution would be to have a large group media which agree to publish solely objective reports. In that way, nonsense-channels like Fox will be outlawed for their information is proved to be wrong by other media. However, the promise to report objectively, without any sensationalistation, isn't very viable.
Log in to comment