News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. This entails a judgement on whether or not something is disinformation.
They have an obligation to report facts and world events, regardless of what they believe to be true. At least in a US context, the infusion of opinion and bias into news that CNN jumpstarted is a cancer that I feel is directly responsible for the highly polarized state of the US.
There is no avoiding the need for judgment in news reporting. Any process of judgement may be biased. An institution may itself have biases, and these will make there way in the judgments made there.
The idea that news organizations can simply and objectively report on facts and world events is functionally impossible. What you want are honest judgements made with an awareness of potential bias, knowing it can never be completely removed. As consumers of news, we should look for the organizations that seek to do that, and preferably read/view a variety of they present to us a more complete picture despite the differences in the judgements they make.
It seems like public discourse is by and large worse off due to the way news media is structured. In the drive for viewers and ratings, the media has become extremely polarizing. People make it a badge of pride that they don't watch X or Y network. You expose that a bit as well when you assume that the words I wrote should only apply to Fox. All cable news media is problematic in this day and age.
When I was young, I got into short-wave listening. This was during the Viet Nam war. I used to listen to the English language news from Radio Moscow, then the news from Voice of America, just for the sheer, rollicking entertainment value of the ideological whiplash. I suggest a similar exercise using modern context -- it will sharpen your BS detector.
Please..... harden and sharpen the edge of your critical thinking skills. News organizations are business entities first. The idea of "just the facts" news reporting idealism is a curiously mid-20th century American idea, and even then was only a facade.
Historically, news organizations have always had a point of view. And advertisers to please -- or at the very least maximize the audience that their advertisers could reach.
News organizations have an obligation to pay the rent and make payroll, just like any other business. Beyond that... I remain skeptical.
Please state where this obligation is documented?
At least in the US (and yes, I realize this is a global site) the vast majority of news organizations have the obligation to make a profit. See "Manufacturing Consent".
I believe you will find 28USC4101 and 47USC588 of particular interest. Fun fact, you are actually accountable for infractions of law whether you know the law or not. Now, either 1) your question was borne out of genuine ignorance; I suspect this is exceedingly unlikely as it would tend to indicate you are incompetent (unless you care to dispute this point) or 2) you posed the question with malicious intent for the purpose of tearing down our common understanding of civil society. Which is it?
Liable and slander are notoriously hard to prove in US courts and use of weasel words commonly let bad actors off the hook in cases.
And they were wrong.
That’s why we need to allow dissent.
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
The only people who think they can say everything they think and not be purged for it are people who don't think much at all.
This is a very dangerous time in the US.
(!) Learn how controlling misinformation is beneficial for society.
You mean someone like Ray Zystzeciez?