Just fine them every time they show a misleading or biased news report until they stop doing it. Couldn't be easier.
I'm afraid I'm not american, so not familiar with your Amendments and what-not. But it does seem strange to me that there would be something written in your constitution forbidding the fining of news companies. Could you explain that to me?
If it were somehow beneficial to the lives of people within the country, and not harm anybody or stain the opinion of your people towards other people's in any way, I'd say it would be justifiable. How could it be understandable? If any, the only way it could be understandable to me is if you're in a position that the biased news doesn't target, but respects.
The news networks are run by people, and all people, no matter how hard they try, have some form of bias. The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of the press, allowing them to basically publish whatever they want. The only way someone could fine them is if an individual, group, or the government sues them. To do that, however, malicious intent and (not 100% on this) intentional misleading need to be proved.
I sincerely hope that some of that was in jest. I do not have to be an American to google 'The Bill of Rights'. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarentees the right to free expression and freedom of the press. The Constitution does not prohibit fining companies, no and I don't know where you got that idea. The news companies are companies. Their job is to sell something. In this case, it is the news. How they present it is based on their interests and what will sell. Remember Common Sense? What if that piece was censored of bias?
I agree with that, but how could a particular case be understandable? What would they have to present to you in order to receive the belief that what they are doing is understandable, if not justified?
The idea that news outlets have to provide one, government-approved, version of the "truth", or be subject to punishment, is repulsive. If there is a factual error made by a news outlet, no matter the level of exposure, they're expected to write a retraction. If the false claims they made caused harm to someone's health, social standing, or property, then they can be sued for defamation. However, I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find news stations that make factually incorrect claims and air them on national television. No matter the level of bias inherent in the anchors, "experts", or guests, it's incredibly rare for any (Western) media outlet to actually lie about something.
actually, it isn't. and he actually presents sources, most of the time. He usually delivers the actual story and then gives his opinion on it. He doesn't do them at the same time.
When I was seeing his videos (just for some laugh), or there were no sources or when there were sources, they were biased, inacessable or they were basic old propaganda lies of the svoiet or maoist regimes.
His last videos were so fucking stupid. Saying the soviets did not commit the Katyn massacre, defending the son of Ghaddafi, defending Iran (even thougth the regime is anti-communist), stalking the Dalai Lama,etc. His channel has a quote of Mao promoting hate against the people of the USA. He promotes hatred, criminal regimes (even if they are not communist, like the iranian one, but who still are anti-West) and crazy conspiracy theories. The man is sick, sick, sick. But he still gives you some laugh, because of his idiocy.
