How can we hold news organizations accountable for false news?

Write letters to the editor, do not buy or watch their news, do not patronize their advertisers.

@YARNLADY gave the answer. That is why there must be a free press, and not a government information agency.

hrm, I already do that. I guess I’m just frustrated by the number of people who do take this news as true, whether they realize it or not, and continue to repeat it to others.

There is a great rush to be the first with each new story, and any news organization can occasionally get one wrong. Legitimate news organizations in the mainstream media do go out of their way to get it right. They employ teams of investigative journalists to fact-check stories before they run with them. And when they find they got out ahead of the facts, they retract and apologize.

In contrast, Fox News has actually been to court to protect their Constitutional right to order their reporters to knowingly lie to the public, and they WON!.

So legally, there is nothing you can do to force news agencies to tell the truth. But you can certainly vote with your eyeballs. Don’t look at the propaganda mills. Let others know why you chose to view or not view a given news outlet. Let their sponsors know you keep track of who pays them to broadcast propaganda.

<RANT> It is amazing and disappointing how often, in a political debate with a right winger, I get told that my source, be it ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post; can’t be trusted. They are biased. This from a person who gets all their news from Fox, Drudge, and Limbaugh. I suppose that to the bitter end there were a lot of dedicated Communists who insisted Pravda was the only reliable news source as well. It is utterly amazing how blind to the truth a deep belief in an ideology—any ideology—can make a person.</RANT>

@ETpro to be honest, I don’t really trust any news organization. All of them have particular issues and biases that annoy me (though I’m considered a liberal) but I find FOX news’ false news AND that lawsuit particularly insulting.

@Iclamae I appreciate the dilemma. I don’t think relying on any one news organization is wise, as all do have a slant. But shutting your ears to all is no way to stay well informed. I subscribe to some right-wing propaganda sources just to keep abreast of what they are claiming. I fact check them and they are almost always lying or putting a great deal of spin on a half truth. But every now and then, they are right—and out there with stuff the mainstream media hasn’t picked up. It is a challenge.

@ETpro I agree, staying completely out of the loop isn’t wise. I have a local newspaper subscription and they do a good job of separating opinion from news. I also watch Daily Show (I know there’s a lot of joking but he does raise some good points that I later look up), and I check the BBC headlines, looking up confusing things from there. (I should specify I don’t have cable or basic tv so that contributes to not watching any tv news).

I guess I should apologize since MSNBC and CNN aren’t that bad. They have a bias but they don’t give strictly false information (that I’m aware of).

The mainstream media tend to uncritically print press releases. I often read newspaper stories and, using Google, locate the original press releases. Often the AP and other press services simply cut and paste the press release without any independent checking (asking authorities for reactions, etc.) For example this happened recently when members of the press were excluded form an international economic summit and simply printed from the White Press release that the conference was a great success. There were no quotes from attendees or other factual information provided. The press release was taken on face value with no evidence of independent checking reported.

@Iclamae GA. MSNBC and CNN have gotten stories wrong, but when they become aware of it, they set the record straight. That’s a far cry from Fox “News” and their lawsuit defending their right to order their reporters to knowingly lie to the public, and to fire any who refuse.

@ItsAHabit I can see how finding such a press release would lead you to that conclusion. But the AP does employ teams of investigative journalists to fact check releases before they run with them, and they routinely print retractions and apologies when they find something nonfactual slipped through. If they copy them verbatim, it just indicates they thought the release was well worded and they are, after all, humans subject to the same laziness that sometimes plagues us all.

Contrast that with WorldNetDaily.com and the The Drudge Report, who will print outrageous rumor as if it is fact and often stick by it in the face of hard evidence it’;s a bogus story.

But why would the AP accept a press release from ANY politician at face value without assuming that it is at least self-serving?

@ItsAHabit I answered that in the previous post. They do not. They instead fact check the release. One of the rules of logic says that while partisanship or financial interest may cause someone to lie or twist the truth, it alone is not evidence they are lying. Every political position deserves to stand or fall on its merits alone. Who said it or who funded it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Such issues should only cause a reporter to exercise due diligence in fact checking.

My point is that there was no evidence whatsoever of any independent fact checking. Of course it’s possible that they fact checked and concluded that the glowing press release was completely correct in all its particulars.

@ItsAHabit And if that happened, there would be no external evidence of it. If you catch them routinely passing on press releases that turn out to be factually inaccurate, that would be evidence they didn’t do due diligence in fact checking.

My experience, with the exception of the case I gave, has been with news stories on health matters. Newspapers routinely simply largely or completely reprint from what the AP sends them or what the organization sends them without independently calling experts for their opinions or reactions.