Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Clinton Suggests Internet Fact Agency

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-true-i-read-it-on-the-internet dept.

eldavojohn writes "Friday on CNBC, Bill Clinton gave an interview that is causing some unrest on popular news sites today. When asked if there is a role for government in terms of ensuring that the information out there is accurate, he replied, 'Well, I think it would be a legitimate thing to do. ... If the government were involved, I think you'd have to do two things ... I think number one, you'd have to be totally transparent about where the money came from. And number two, you would have to make it independent. ... let's say the US did it; it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn't think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out. That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors. And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake.' His statements have elicited responses ranging from a Ministry of Truth a la 1984 to discussion of genuine concern about internet rumors and falsehoods."

10 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bring Back The Fairness Doctorine by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

    Translation: the federal government/current administration has to approve of the way you handle controversial views. What could possibly go wrong?

    I would have thought that radio broadcasting would have somewhat similar rights to the freedom of the press. The "Fairness Doctrine" seems to challenge that idea.

  2. Waste, Again by omb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite apart from all the other good reasons why this is a BAD idea, it is another way to wase money a broke country dosn't have.

    1. Re:Waste, Again by bfields · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite apart from all the other good reasons why this is a BAD idea, it is another way to wase money a broke country dosn't have.

      First, the US is very far from broke. We have a huge national income, and (relative to our peers) choose to spend relatively little of it on taxes. We could in theory go "broke" if we fail to raise revenues to cover growing health care costs and/or cut benefits to our aging population. Nobody (least of all the people putting their money where there mouths are and buying US debt) seems to think it's likely that we'll do neither, and thus default.

      Second, the proposal in question would require a trivial amount of money; factcheck.org and polifact.com, for example, already do this kind of work. I wonder what their budgets are--probably 6 or 7 figures? A government with a 13-figure budget could do contribute significantly to that kind of work with money that would amount to a rounding error. BBC news appears to be around 8 figures, for a complete news organization with international coverage.

      Third, this hardly strikes me as a "waste". If we could better educate our voters with such a tiny fraction of our budget, that sounds like spending that could pay for itself.

  3. Re:Bring Back The Fairness Doctorine by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    most issues are more complex than 'for and against.' thus, the 'fairness doctrine' wasn't really fair at all.. all it did was provide a 'sensibility' sandbox that was defined by popularity, not truth. step outside the box, and you were censored anyway.

  4. Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is... by wrightrocket · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bill Clinton talking about what the truth is! I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is... http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/

  5. Re:wikipedia by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wikipedia? Seriously?

    Given that much of Wikipedia is dominated by cliques of editors whose main preoccupation is to keep out competing edits (no matter how sensible those edits may be), and given there's a big difference between neutrality and objectivity, I hardly think Wikipedia is a good example of what Clinton is talking about.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  6. Re:FANTASTIC idea! by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was going to mod this up as a masterful hilarious post but then I looked back at your post history and reaslised you may be serious.

  7. Are we takling about .... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... snopes.gov?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Re:wikipedia by ArundelCastle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have yet to see that Wikipedia. I go to the one with people collaborating on making articles better. Yes, occasionally a jerk comes along and tries to push a particular point of view, but they generally come to their senses quickly or just go away, often after being blocked from editing.

    Purely in the name of sober second thought, you might want to consider - just for a moment - that you're already on the clique side looking out. I'm certainly not saying you are, but I think it is valid advice to anyone that says they don't see a particular societal problem, to also look in the mirror.

  9. Re:FANTASTIC idea! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or like many great satirists he has an act which extends beyond one post.