The FCC should add warning labels to news programs

1) Bias in evaluating news programs"So far, Pro has not touched my major objection and really the major crux of the debate, namely defining the system"I have explained several times now how this issue is accounted for since the evaluation by the FCC or an independent body, as random or comprehensive as it may be, still boils down to three tests:1 - Whether or not the information she presents on a regular basis is indeed factual2 - Whether or not the tv pundit or host draws reasonable conclusions from the evidence she presents3 - Whether or not the tv pundit or host uses those same conclusions to advocate for some sort of agenda^ Evaluating the accuracy ratings of shows boils down to these three tests that can be answered with a yes/no/maybe. This eliminates potential bias towards particular stances on controversial issues, because as I will say to you once again, all that is being checked is if the facts reported on a news program are accurate, if reasonable conclusions are drawn from them, and if those facts and conclusions are used to advocate for some sort of agenda. These are questions that can be answered easily and quickly by watching any news program, but the con is trying to distort evaluating the accuracy of a news report to make it seem like its some form of rocket science and impossible to evaluate the accuracy of a news program, when just about anybody can figure out if a news program is being biased or not once they know what to look for that indicates bias. 2) The Micheal Brown case + Justice Department examination case"In hindsight, using the model [Pro provided] can [Pro] make provide a rating based on this coverage"First off you're trying to tie two very different topics together and ask that it be treated like one gigantic event that has to be evaluated in its entirety, but the Micheal Brown shooting involves many different issues of many different angles, ranging from topics such as racial diversity of towns + police forces, militarization of police forces, justice department investigations, racism in general, etc. that would be evaluated individually for accuracy of a news program to be determined. For a ranking to be determined, all that has to be done is to break down the coverage so that each aspect of the entire saga is examined on its own merits. Lets look at the coverage from the first few days after the event happened. - MSNBC showed a clear leaning towards Michael Brown and his family, and used the event to push for an agenda that racism and militarization in the police forces is a huge problem , indicating bias. Therefore, MSNBC's accuracy rating should be considered for a downgrade due to showing a clear bias and an agenda. - Fox News showed a clear leaning towards police forces, and also pushed for an agenda of their own that racism is not as big of an issue as its being made out to be in America, also indicating bias and having an agenda. Therefore, Fox News's accuracy rating should be considered for a downgrade due to showing a clear bias and an agenda. - ABC reported that Micheal Brown had been killed by police, that his death sparked protests around the country, and that was it. ABC didn't have wall-to-wall news coverage of the event, they didn't use the event to bring up a discussion about a whole list of other events, they just reported what was going on, and then left it at that before moving on to the next story. Therefore ABC's accuracy rating should not be weighed to be downgraded based on how they covered this story. Was that so hard? Not at all. 3) Revolving Door in politics"FCC employees in fact have proven completely inept and demonstrate gross unethical behavior on many occasions. Here is a headline from this year"Just because members of the FCC have former ties to groups and corporations that the FCC holds influence over, that doesn't somehow mean they are 'completely inept and demonstrate gross unethical behavior'. If you want to claim that the FCC is inept at its job, then point to a clear instance of the FCC completely failing to do a job that falls in its realm of responsibility. Con has failed to do that, so his claim that the FCC is inept is an unsubstantiated lie. Furthermore, its not the heads of the FCC themselves who will be evaluating the accuracy of news programs like some sort of media Czars for the government. Con is now attempting to misrepresent what it is I am advocating for. The actual analysis of the accuracy of news programs would be a task that involves dozens or even hundreds of workers analyzing coverage of events from multiple media outlets, and then applying the 3 criteria I have brought up a half dozen times now to determine if news programs are distorting stories and news, when they did so, and how much. Only THEN, when all of that information is processed and put together, would a decision over which rating of accuracy should be assigned to news program be determined, with the mountain of evidence being the primary driver behind a decision being made, not any one persons personal beliefs. The whole reason I brought up the heads of the FCC in the first place is to point out how the FCC itself is set up so that multiple viewpoints and political opinions are represented within the organization on all levels, a point that con didn't even care to dispute, which also discredits his claim that the FCC wouldnt be able to fairly weigh the accuracy of a news program due to potential bias. 4) Iraq War"Given every news network an F for inaccuracy and bias"Where did I ever say that a news program's accuracy rating would drop down to an F for coverage of a single event? The answer is I DIDNT, and if con would like to stop misrepresenting my position and try to stay on track on the debate, that would be lovely. There was a huge spreading of misinformation leading up to the outbreak of the Iraq war that was spread by news outlets, ranging from Iraq's nuclear program, to the presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, to Iraq's involvement in 9/11 in the first place.... Would this system have prevented the Iraq war from happening? Probably not, but it would have penalized news programs for spreading the tremendous amount of misinformation and disinformation in the first place, which would then have incentivized those programs from doing the same thing again. ==========================================================================Con's entire arguments boils down to the unsubstantiated claim that neither the FCC, nor any other independent agency, can have an unbiased and objective system of assigning accuracy ratings to news programs. This tentpole of his argument though doesn't hold up because1 - Facts speak for themselves regardless of your stance on a political issue. No matter what your stance on Ferguson is, it is a simple fact that there is a big racial discrepancy in the race of the town of Ferguson, and the police force of Ferguson. If a news station had claimed that there was NOT a big discrepancy between the two, then they would be wrong, because the facts state otherwise, and you would arrive at that conclusion regardless of your opinion of the situation in Ferguson in the first place. And 2 - Its easy to tell if an agenda is being advocated for. If someone uses an event to make any kind of call to action that needs to be done, that can easily be seen. If Bill O'Reilly reported on food stamps, and then used whatever facts he found to then argue for why food stamps are bad and should be reduced or eliminated, that's a clear instance of advocating for an agenda, which can easily be detected and taken into account when later evaluating what the accuracy rating of his program should be.