-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
The truth is there's little the government can do about lies on cable
If a company makes a false claim in an advertisement, the government has the power to hold that company accountable and not allow consumers to be fleeced.
That's because the Federal Trade Commission regulates truth in advertising2.
"When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful3, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence," the FTC boasts. "The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears — in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards4 or buses."
But that's not the case for what we hear on cable news or read on social media (or political ads for that matter). And that was put into stark5 relief last week when Fox News' Tucker Carlson tried to rewrite history on the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
Rioters, inspired by former President Donald Trump6's lies about the 2020 presidential election that he lost, stormed the Capitol in hopes of trying to stop the ceremonial certification of Joe Biden's win.
Since then, more than 1,000 people have been arrested and are facing charges. More than 500 have been convicted so far for their roles that day.
And yet, after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave over a virtual pallet of video footage from that day — as part of a deal he struck with members on the right flank of the party to get himself elected speaker — Carlson went on air showing benign7 images from that day.
"The crowd was enormous," Carlson said. "A small percentage of them were hooligans. They committed vandalism. You've seen their pictures again and again. But the overwhelming majority weren't. They were peaceful, they were orderly and meek8. These were not insurrectionists. They were sightseers."
That's severely9 lacking context. Many people who participated were charged with everything from entering a restricted building or grounds and disorderly conduct to engaging in acts of physical violence, theft and assaulting or impeding10 law enforcement.
Five people died during or soon after the riot. It's estimated that more than $2.5 million worth of damage was done to the Capitol. And the FBI considers what happened that day an act of domestic terrorism.
Multiple Republican senators rebuked11 Carlson.
Sen. John Thune of South Dakota reaffirmed he considered what happened on Jan. 6 "an attack on the Capitol."
Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said, "To put it in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie."
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina was more blunt. "It's bulls***," he said.
Fox News did not respond to an email requesting comment.
So what can be done to police inaccurate12 reports on cable networks?
The answer is not much.
The Federal Communications Commission regulates the words that get said over the public's airwaves — and it prohibits "distortions" to be broadcast over them. According to the FCC:
The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe13 if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial 'public harm' if aired.
FCC rules specifically say that the "public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."
It adds:
The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing14 on First Amendment15 rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally16 distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.
But cable is a different medium. The words and images that come via cable are not through public, broadcast airwaves, or what someone can get on a TV with an antenna17.
The FCC's regulation only applies to licensed19, local broadcast outlets20 that transmit through the airwaves. This is largely because of the way these regulations came to be. Because the first broadcast medium was radio and it was available to anyone at any time, public access signals are regulated.
"Unfortunately, the FCC does not have jurisdiction21 over cable networks," former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said. "In fact, it doesn't even have jurisdiction over networks like CBS and NBC who use the airwaves."
Put another way: The FCC regulates the local stations that carry your local news programs, which are affiliates22 of CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox. But there's essentially23 no regulation of what's said on cable networks like MSNBC, CNN or, you guessed it, Fox News.
Lawmakers struggle for an answer
The lack of any control over cable news, allowing episodes like what Carlson aired, is frustrating24 for many, including Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico. He chairs a key subcommittee with oversight25 over cable.
"There should be more tools out there to ensure that nonsense like this is not happening," Luján said. "And just as the affiliates on the broadcasting side have to get a license18 that would not allow this, why is it that folks on the other side within the same corporation are able to do it all while hurting the American people?"
Luján says he's exploring his options, including potentially holding hearings and seeing if there's more latitude26 that can be given to regulatory agencies.
But it's likely a stretch.
"The primary difficulty comes from our Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press," said John Vile27, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University, who co-edits the Encyclopedia28 of the First Amendment. "That has been interpreted particularly to mean that the government is not the arbiter29 of opinion. And any time the government has tried to arbitrate opinion, it ends up getting in trouble."
So if established regulatory structures can't do anything about cable, or opinions expressed on them, is there any way of holding it accountable?
"I think we're seeing in the Dominion30 [case] that there is recourse through the courts," Wheeler said. "But if your question is, is there recourse through government regulation? The answer is it's much more limited."
Wheeler is referring to a lawsuit31 from Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News. It revealed Fox News executives and hosts, including Carlson, knew what they were putting on the air were lies about the 2020 presidential election that they didn't believe.
But the Dominion case is a $1.6 billion defamation32 case. To win a lawsuit like that, a public person or company who feels they were harmed needs to show either knowledge of falsity or a "reckless disregard for truth," otherwise known as the "actual malice33" standard.
It's an intentionally high bar that generally protects the ability to publish criticism — and the like — of public officials. (In some states, private citizens have a lower bar of needing to prove "simple negligence34" to win compensatory damages.)
To bring a lawsuit in the first place, though, there needs to be a person or company that can show "standing," and that they were harmed in some way.
That makes it tougher to seek a remedy through the courts for something that's said on cable news that's a general lie or distortion.
The threat from social media and the Internet
When it comes to mis- and disinformation, though, the biggest perceived threat to truth has been from social media and the Internet. That's why Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., have proposed a new federal watchdog, the Digital Platform Commission, to try and regulate truth online.
"I believe that we can't accept another 20 years in this country of digital platforms, transforming American life with absolutely no oversight or accountability to the American people," Bennet said, adding, "I'd like us to have an alternative to the social media algorithms that are making the angriest and most vitriolic35 content go viral, distorting our political conversation. I would say maybe even destroying our political conversation."
Conservatives have their own issues with social media platforms, believing they are unfairly targeted for their ideology36. Trump was kicked off Twitter and Facebook after Jan. 6 for violating policies related to encouraging violence, and many conservatives, including many GOP members of Congress, have had their tweets flagged for spreading misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They see "free speech" as under attack.
"The Internet has democratized our political discourse," former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai argued in a 2017 speech. "It has invigorated political debate. And in my view, it can help sustain our shared cultural commitment to free expression."
Bennet says it's gone too far.
"I am a huge defender37 and believer in the First Amendment," he said. "I actually think that's one of the reasons why I care about this so much. You know, I think truth matters a lot. And on Jan. 6, I was imploring38 my colleagues on the floor to tell their political followers39 the truth. We now know that that truth was well known by my colleagues and by the so-called journalists at Fox News, who have withheld40 that truth from their own viewership for fear that they were going to lose that viewership."
The divide is clear, and there haven't been many Republicans to go along with the creation of a new regulatory agency for the digital age. There have been some bipartisan strides on regulating TikTok, for example, which both sides see as a data collection threat from China.
But without a bipartisan effort when it comes to information online, cable news and the Internet will remain a modern-day Wild West with no guard rails when it comes to truth and lies.
收听单词发音 |
1
transcript
|
|
| n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
truthful
|
|
| adj.真实的，说实话的，诚实的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
billboards
|
|
| n.广告牌( billboard的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
stark
|
|
| adj.荒凉的；严酷的；完全的；adv.完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
trump
|
|
| n.王牌，法宝；v.打出王牌，吹喇叭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
benign
|
|
| adj.善良的，慈祥的；良性的，无危险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
meek
|
|
| adj.温顺的，逆来顺受的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
impeding
|
|
| a.(尤指坏事)即将发生的，临近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
rebuked
|
|
| 责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
catastrophe
|
|
| n.大灾难，大祸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
infringing
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的现在分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
intentionally
|
|
| ad.故意地，有意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
antenna
|
|
| n.触角，触须；天线 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
licensed
|
|
| adj.得到许可的v.许可，颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
outlets
|
|
| n.出口( outlet的名词复数 )；经销店；插座；廉价经销店 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
affiliates
|
|
| 附属企业( affiliate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
frustrating
|
|
| adj.产生挫折的，使人沮丧的，令人泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的现在分词 )；挫败；使受挫折；令人沮丧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
oversight
|
|
| n.勘漏，失察，疏忽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
vile
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的，可耻的，邪恶的；坏透的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
encyclopedia
|
|
| n.百科全书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
arbiter
|
|
| n.仲裁人，公断人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
lawsuit
|
|
| n.诉讼，控诉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
defamation
|
|
| n.诽谤；中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
negligence
|
|
| n.疏忽，玩忽，粗心大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
vitriolic
|
|
| adj.硫酸的，尖刻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
ideology
|
|
| n.意识形态，(政治或社会的)思想意识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
defender
|
|
| n.保卫者，拥护者，辩护人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
imploring
|
|
| 恳求的，哀求的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索