But newspapers are liable for the content they publish, and that keeps misinformation somewhat in check.
If Twitter and Facebook etc were held to publisher standards they couldn’t exist in any form like they do today. I kind of think that would be a good thing.
>In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group.
It doesn't matter if something is written down as being against the law/regulations/whatever if the punishment for breaking that law/regulation is toothless, seldom applied, or so expensive to get proceedings started that 90% of the population is priced-out of pursuing their case from the start.
"Just sue them if they write something incorrect/defamatory/etc" is not really a realistic option for the majority of people, not a guarantee of anything happening or reforming, and generally the damage has already been caused. No one really cares about a retraction issued a few months after a story is released, we've all moved on to the next outrage-inducing story.
The MSM may steer clear of the obvious falsehoods like vaportrails/5g mind control, but the misinformation they do provide is extra dangerous, especially when it's a joint effort with the government.
This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?
It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
"During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate."
In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.
This slogan refers to sensational violence (car crashes, murders, earthquakes), not content that inflames readers ideologically. Maybe it's tawdry in its own way, but it does not seem nearly so polarizing to me.