Sixty Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic About Section 230

Re:Sixty Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic Abou... by panarky on Monday January 04, 2021 @07:17PM (#25640219)

If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sixty Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic Abou... by robomartin on Monday January 04, 2021 @08:25PM (#25640808)

No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said.

It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition.

I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sixty Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic Abou... by panarky on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @12:40AM (#25642533)

Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sixty Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic Abou... by postmeta on Monday January 04, 2021 @08:38PM (#25640961)

profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale

[ Parent | on HN ]