All the tools are in place already to make sure journalists/platforms get punished (i.e. stop reading their crap.) Problem is people that only read and hear what they want to believe.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
38 points (89.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6849 readers
240 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That should come with reputational consequences - not just for the journalist, but also for the platform that amplified their speculation
This is already true though? At least for respectable sources.
Anyway reputation is socially enforced. You can't make a law about it
Thinking about this from a technical standpoint, it would be interesting and useful if the platforms that host online articles provided some mechanisms to (1) explicitly recognize when an article is making predictions and (2) allow/remind the author or readers to follow-up and rate the accuracy of the predictions over time. This would allow all sorts of meta analysis on the accuracy of a particular author's predictions, on particular types of predictions, on trends in positive or negative predictions, etc.
Assuming you mean laws (which is what you seem to be insinuating without daring to say it), this is an absolutely terrible take.
Laws to make journalism "accountable" are at the top of every authoritarian government's wishlist. In Russia, you get 15 years for publishing "knowingly false information" about the armed forces (where the meaning of "false" is decided by the prosecutor). Since Trump debased this concept of "fake news", authoritarian regimes around the world have used it as a pretext for new laws.
In China, meanwhile, journalists are not even allowed to "undermine national harmony" and similar nebulous ideals. Even in Britain, the libel laws are so tough that it can be very expensive to make even a small mistake when talking about individual rich people. The Trump administration is pushing for a British-style libel laws in the US.
The end result of making journalism "accountable" is to shut up all opposition to power. That is a very dangerous road to go down.
No, I'm not talking about a law. If I did I would've said so.
Your argument seems a bit redundant then. Journalists and news platforms are already "held accountable" when they get things wrong: their reputations suffer.
I've been saying this for years. News is news, but media is media. And just like the difference between an artistic nude and pornography, you know what it is when you see it.
I don't think that news organizations should be allowed to broadcast Propaganda media without consequence, At the very least, they should be required to be transparent when they are not reporting what they believe to be factual truth.
Yeah, I just don’t know how society would go about enforcing this. I feel like there should be some kind of "This We Were Wrong About" tab or a way to look up individual journalists and see their track record. That way, if someone makes big claims, you could check whether they have a history of doing so and what their success rate has been.
It would work both ways too - if someone frequently makes bold predictions but has been right many times before, maybe their views should carry more weight.
I don't know about this, but I'll settle for accountability on facts. Seems like we have a long way to go still.