An Enemy of We The People

There was a time - back in the early 80s - when I abandoned the MSM. The new kid, CNN, proved themselves over and over to be more reliable when it came to reporting facts. For close to a decade my news came from CNN. Then they too changed directions. When FOX News was launched in 1996, I tuned in hoping for that missing ingredient - factually based reporting - and found it. They have floundered occasionally, but FOX is still the best choice today.

So I contest your assertion that Trump has, in any way, worked to "destroy one of the very pillars on which our democracy was founded." That is all on the press itself. Yes, "Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew a democracy cannot exist without it." But keeping the respect of the people, which the press has to earn with EVERY story it produces, is wholly the responsibility of the press itself.

If the press finds itself being attacked - by whomever - it should only have to hold up the story over which it is being attacked in it's defense. If a single word of spin is required, the story itself is inadequate and questionable. As soon as that is the rule rather than the exception, the press has made itself "an enemy of the people" because lies and half truths do not serve We The People.

The quotes above are from "Reagan aide: Condemn Trump's 'enemy of the people' rhetoric"

An open letter to social media hosts

It is becoming standard practice to remove statements that are considered "fake news". Perhaps it is time to consider an alternative.

Instead of removing controversial statements, I propose social media hosts (Facebook, Google, etc.) label them as incomplete or inaccurate or outright false (a great big watermark?) and provide a link or links to factual information that refutes the statement.

(I cannot see how this would work on Twitter.)

This would be beneficial in several ways. First, nobody's free speech is hindered. Second, it would publicly identify the statement as questionable and link to factual information resolving the controversy. Third, there would be no ascribing motives to the social media host for censorship because all they have done is provide a link. If the host makes a mistake, it is there for the world to see.

Another benefit would be the inability of others to link to the statement as a final thought. This will, ideally, prevent it from being used to further spread the statement because any reference back to it would also provide immediate access to a link or links to facts countering it.

Directing the reader to factual information would allow the social media host doing the review to show that they are not being biased. Facts are facts.

The individual or group disseminating the "fake news" is effectively shamed publicly every time someone sees the post - in much the same fashion sex offenders are by being registered.

Everyone wins except for the purveyors of "fake news" IMHO.