While I don't agree with the administration's approach, should we not have standards that we judge legacy news institutions by? Some are getting their information directly from Iran and its proxies, taking them at their word as if they have no stake in the game. Perhaps they are legally allowed to do so, but the damage is done. So beyond the legal standard, does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news?
Nothing in the piece is meant to suggest that journalism shouldn't have standards, or that media coverage is always fair, unbiased, and accurate. The point is narrower: the government does not — and should not — have the power to enforce those standards. That would be a cure worse than the disease, as Chairman Carr's tenure has made clear. He has repeatedly used the tools at his disposal to single out and chill coverage unfavorable to the administration.
I think news organizations absolutely should have professional standards. They should care about the truth, exercise care in sourcing, and be transparent with their audiences. But in a free society, those standards are enforced through private means — editorial judgment, public criticism, audience trust, competition, media literacy, etc. — not by government regulators with their own biases and political incentives.
The combination of the First Amendment and modern technology has produced an incredibly diverse media landscape. People are free to choose what to read, watch, and listen to. Commentators, competing media outlets, and ordinary people are free to criticize or debunk coverage they think is false or biased, or to persuade their fellow citizens to get their news elsewhere. But no central authority gets to decide what the "truth" is and punish those who deviate from it. That's the line FIRE is defending.
FIRE has an ethical standard to support free speech. Do some claims come "directly from Iran and its proxies"? Sure. Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake.
"should we not have standards"? Yes. That's what the marketplace is for.
"the damage is done". Who arbitrates what speech is "damage"? The government? They're the biggest liars with the biggest motive to disseminate falsehoods on the face of the planet. Who is the expert in your vision who will arbitrate what is allowed and what is not?
"Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake." This might happen. It might also not happen. I'll need evidence to believe it "will" happen.
I’m saying that damage has been done by false, incorrect or misleading “news.” I’m not saying that someone should necessarily, to use your word, arbitrate the news. I’m simply wondering (out loud) if there should be more context and nuance to this criticism. I deeply support FIRE’s mission. But I’m just a curious person doing what I do best — asking questions. You, however, appear to be offended in some way … and I’m not sure why.
It seems you and the author are talking past each other. You both agree that news organizations should have professional standards. I think the disconnect is where you ask does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news. The author’s answer is no, it does not, because that is not part of its mission. FIRE is simply defending the free speech line that no central authority gets to decide what the "truth" is and punish those who deviate from it.
But you are making a great point that someone should address, because the bias and misinformation from multiple interest groups is dividing us into alternate realities.
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that. But hopefully we can revive that sense of duty and responsibility … I’m trying to do my small part.
I appreciate your comment. And I didn’t quite realize what it was that bothered me enough to comment until you shared yours.
You are right about FIRE’s mission and thus this article makes its point, but what it (understandably) misses is the context. So taken on its face it comes off as if one side is a fault in this issue. When really, it’s both sides. The problem is that the average American isn’t aware of both sides because, as you mentioned, we live in alternate realities. That’s not necessarily FIRE’s problem, I realize. But it’s very much A problem.
It is a problem. And like many problems (who we elect, what media we support with our money and eyeballs, our education system, etc), the ultimate responsibility falls on the American people to educate and organize themselves to try to make things right.
While I don't agree with the administration's approach, should we not have standards that we judge legacy news institutions by? Some are getting their information directly from Iran and its proxies, taking them at their word as if they have no stake in the game. Perhaps they are legally allowed to do so, but the damage is done. So beyond the legal standard, does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news?
Thanks for your comment.
Nothing in the piece is meant to suggest that journalism shouldn't have standards, or that media coverage is always fair, unbiased, and accurate. The point is narrower: the government does not — and should not — have the power to enforce those standards. That would be a cure worse than the disease, as Chairman Carr's tenure has made clear. He has repeatedly used the tools at his disposal to single out and chill coverage unfavorable to the administration.
I think news organizations absolutely should have professional standards. They should care about the truth, exercise care in sourcing, and be transparent with their audiences. But in a free society, those standards are enforced through private means — editorial judgment, public criticism, audience trust, competition, media literacy, etc. — not by government regulators with their own biases and political incentives.
The combination of the First Amendment and modern technology has produced an incredibly diverse media landscape. People are free to choose what to read, watch, and listen to. Commentators, competing media outlets, and ordinary people are free to criticize or debunk coverage they think is false or biased, or to persuade their fellow citizens to get their news elsewhere. But no central authority gets to decide what the "truth" is and punish those who deviate from it. That's the line FIRE is defending.
FIRE has an ethical standard to support free speech. Do some claims come "directly from Iran and its proxies"? Sure. Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake.
"should we not have standards"? Yes. That's what the marketplace is for.
"the damage is done". Who arbitrates what speech is "damage"? The government? They're the biggest liars with the biggest motive to disseminate falsehoods on the face of the planet. Who is the expert in your vision who will arbitrate what is allowed and what is not?
"Those claims can, and will, be refuted if they are fake." This might happen. It might also not happen. I'll need evidence to believe it "will" happen.
I’m saying that damage has been done by false, incorrect or misleading “news.” I’m not saying that someone should necessarily, to use your word, arbitrate the news. I’m simply wondering (out loud) if there should be more context and nuance to this criticism. I deeply support FIRE’s mission. But I’m just a curious person doing what I do best — asking questions. You, however, appear to be offended in some way … and I’m not sure why.
It seems you and the author are talking past each other. You both agree that news organizations should have professional standards. I think the disconnect is where you ask does FIRE have an ethical standard by which it assesses news. The author’s answer is no, it does not, because that is not part of its mission. FIRE is simply defending the free speech line that no central authority gets to decide what the "truth" is and punish those who deviate from it.
But you are making a great point that someone should address, because the bias and misinformation from multiple interest groups is dividing us into alternate realities.
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that. But hopefully we can revive that sense of duty and responsibility … I’m trying to do my small part.
Me too. It’s not always easy to find the time to do that. But I am trying when I can.
I appreciate your comment. And I didn’t quite realize what it was that bothered me enough to comment until you shared yours.
You are right about FIRE’s mission and thus this article makes its point, but what it (understandably) misses is the context. So taken on its face it comes off as if one side is a fault in this issue. When really, it’s both sides. The problem is that the average American isn’t aware of both sides because, as you mentioned, we live in alternate realities. That’s not necessarily FIRE’s problem, I realize. But it’s very much A problem.
It is a problem. And like many problems (who we elect, what media we support with our money and eyeballs, our education system, etc), the ultimate responsibility falls on the American people to educate and organize themselves to try to make things right.