4 ms·
@voku of course there is, otherwise this wouldn't be news.
by sergiotapia 10y ago
@voku of course there is, otherwise this wouldn't be news.
- abiox 10y agoi tend to think there's a decorum aspect to things, but nobody expects mainstream news to be "unbiased" - it's the WWE of journalism. (not that alt-news or blogs are often any different.) court cases have established that, really, "free speech" and other things end up meaning that "the news" can lie, distort and implicate whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to fantastical degrees.
- vkou 10y agoThis is manufactured outrage. As mentioned by abiox, in a free country, every source of news is free to lie and distort things as much as it feels like. Facebook having an anti-conservative slant (true or not) is about as newsworthy as Fox News having an anti-reason slant. For some reason, though, there aren't too many conservative senators wringing their hands and calling for an investigation into the latter.
- Torgo 10y agoAll this proves is that the distinction between government and private entity suppression of speech (see: that moronic XKCD cartoon) is a bullshit distinction when your communications mediums are owned by megacorps.
- talmand 10y agoActually, courts have established that the first amendment does not necessarily allow anyone to lie and distort things as much as they wish. There are limitations. It's just that some people are better than others at skirting along that line.
- vkou 10y agoOnly in a very few select contexts. 1. When you have a fiduciary duty. 2. When you are on a witness stand. 3. When you are speaking to a federal agent. 4. When you are committing fraud. (See #1) 5. ??? None of these are relevant to mass media.
- talmand 10y agoThere is libel and slander, which are relevant to mass media.