In the most recent right angle about being able to sue the media over false statements, Bill brings up the concept of a “news license” that allows news publishers to be sued for false stories and how that would be dangerous for local news papers and network affiliate news, and it got me thinking about how to implement that in a way that helps with the news media stranglehold on [dis]information without harming local and independent news, and that is 4 words; social media authoritative sources.
Think about it, what’s something we on the right complain about social media “platforms” like facebook and youtube. One of the many complaints we have is that they tout leftist “news” outlets as “authoritative,” like that somehow the New York Times or CNN is somehow superior to New York Post or Steven Crowder, when the only difference is that they agree with them. Well, I think that to be considered “authoritative,” a news source needs to one of these licenses.
OK, so let’s address the primary concern one would have with that; in order to be “authoritative,” you need to open yourself up to all kinds of litigation. For a free society with a free press that’s quite a big ask, but let’s also not forget who the social media giants call “authoritative.” Facebook isn’t citing local KRMJ or WWOR news as “authoritative” nor do they ever, they’re citing CNN and the like. I don’t think the residents of Joplin, Missouri are going to stop trusting KODE local news because twitter can’t use them as “authoritative,” and neither would the viewers of The Daily Wire or any other conservative news source. I mean, Fox News has been “FOx nEWs” for years and that hasn’t stopped their reach. I don’t think not being “authoritative” is going to instill any more trust or distrust than is already being done.
Now for why I think this is a great idea. Big tech and the MSM have an incestuous relationship, where big media says something blatantly false (like the “fine people” lie, and “Russia”), and big tech props it up as “truthful from an authoritative source,” and they all try to help the leftist cause du jour. This is something we’ve complained about since the beginning of “authoritative sources,” because we know they lie. Now the idea of “authoritative and reliable sources” isn’t a “bad concept,” that’s what academic research is based on (“don’t use wikipedia, it’s not reliable, use a peer-reviewed academic journal”), but there are many different hurdles one must jump through to be considered “reliable” as well as a track record to maintain (because who would listen to a medical journal that regularly publishes completely incorrect studies and findings, or wikipedia where anyone can edit it). Now let’s say the “authoritative sources” were held liable for not being “reliably accurate,” I think we could then begin to return to building trust into the institutions again, because one of three things could happen.
- Big tech is no longer able to push “authoritative sources” because no one is dumb enough to get a media license. We want an even playing field, but big tech regularly silences us while pushing MSM as “authoritative.” It’s very uneven. Well, if no one is choosing to be “authoritative,” then now we have an evener playing field (still probably have to deal with censorship, but at least it’s not “listen to these guys instead”). If big tech wants to push someone as “authoritative” without a license, well then the big tech platform is now claiming that is “authoritative” and is open to the same legal repercussions as the news outlet would be if they published that as “authoritative.”
- MSM is no longer so reckless with their disinformation. Let’s say that vanity of the big names gets to them and they get the news license to be “authoritative,” well now they can’t say “Russia collusion, stolen election” lest they be sued. They are well aware of the target on their backs, so they are on their best behavior and do what responsible journalists are supposed to do; wait for the facts and report on just the facts.
- MSM is constantly being sued, and losing because they never learn. OK, maybe big news’s vanity causes them to get the “authoritative license” and their arrogance has them still peddling “Covington school kids racistly smirked at a drugged out Native American,” well now they are getting sued every day and are bleeding money because they don’t have a leg to stand on. Well at least the afflicted parties can receive some financial compensation for their malpractice, and maybe one day all of big media’s money would be “redistributed” to the people they hurt with their disinformation.
To account for genuine honest mistakes (even the rookie ones, like reporting before all the facts come out), I’m going to “redistribute” an idea I read in the comment section of the original video; equal intensity of retractions as the original false story. Front page headline proves to be incorrect, the next day the front page headline is “we screwed this up, here’s what really happened.” 5 prime time stories of “Brett is a rapist” requires 5 prime time stories of “actually his accusers lied and never groped a woman let alone raped them.” That I think would result in #2 or #3.
One reply on “A Conservative use for a “News Media License””
Clever. So essentially it’s the tactical nuke option. You have these media licenses as a weapon that essentially cannot be used; and prevents the problem through its non-use.
No-one would dare to actually get one, but if they did, you could sue them out of existence for their actual wrongdoing. I like it.