Factual Media and Information Neutrality Act
Congress must pass a Factual Media and Information Neutrality Act or a similar thing with a cooler-sounding name. This entails a standard of quality on the information presented by public figures, networks, and platforms, excluding individuals in order to protect the freedom of speech and personal liberty. On another hand, anyone who works as a journalist or a person of influence, s/he should be held to a higher standard than an average individual for that person or network would have the resources available to help them fact check information.
Journalists should be licensed, like lawyers by the Bar Association, and they must adhere to the standards set forth to continue their duty as journalists and maintain journalist integrity. The same should apply to any influencer who is verified, like having that checkmark next to your name on Twitter. There should also be a limit on the number of followers until the account is verified. With a verified account, the account holders must be fact-check their sources and perform all due diligence before sharing a post or posting. Moreover, the post must be shared in neutral languages in order to minimize unintended/intended influence on the viewers. This is to ensure information is presented in the least biased manner possible, thus limiting the embellishment and reducing the heightening of the sensationalism on the news. A platform, such as Facebook, should also throttle any posts passed a certain rate of acceleration in terms of sharing to fact-check this information. Thus preventing false information from going viral. It is also often hard for one organization to police all the contents, therefore there should be a reward for citizens to help catch these violators and let the invisible hand take its course to improve the quality of information on a platform, news source, and public figure.
One exception to this would be the opinion column and shows not presented as news. While languages in an opinion show/column could be “embellished” to express your reaction, the veracity requirement must still be met prior to the presentation. Another thing I have observed is that broadcasters would start off with a biased question without answering the question of presenting the fact but simply ramble on with “logically sounded” judgments without a base. It is the broadcasters’ job to present and summarize ALL the facts, without either of such components, the content becomes nothing but conspiracy theories, which should not be presented as though they are fact or logical. While it is reasonable to analyze for the audience, the conclusion should only be drawn after and only after all the facts, and their merits and credentials, have been presented. One can’t, and should not, jump to the prediction with prescription without knowing what had truly happened. The presentation of such should also be accompanied by non-judgemental languages. In addition, the presenter of such shows/columns should also present a set of valid counter-point as a complete discussion. In violation of such should result in fines on BOTH the poster and the platform. If the account in question is a highly regarded public figure or one with access to a high level of resources that could validate the fact but failed, the owner of such account should also be subjected to criminal liability. To many who may argue this is a type of censorship, I personally do not believe this would violate the freedom of speech as it’s their job to present factual and unbiased information. No reasonable individual could maintain a continuous connection with more than a dozen friends on a personal level.
Following a similar line of thinking that a broadcaster or an influencer is not the same as a regular individual, we should also reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to ensure their license is tied to the quality of their content. Lastly, News networks and journalists should limit their speculation only on future events and reject any speculation of the past without any factual supports. News network is also not News if the programs contain more than 1/3 opinion/speculation shows/columns. For small local stations, the government should provide grants for these stations/newspapers to spend on fact-checking. Let’s put that money where their mouth is.
