Again, you are being disingenuous. Under "my purpose solution" the government dictates nothing. The government showed no concrete proof and that's be the end of story. The job of a journalist would be exactly to say the government claimed so but no concrete evidence was presented and all available evidence showed otherwise, that's the fact of it.
I am not being disingenuous, this exchange started with CDC recommendations, and claiming that posts which suggest these recommendations are wrong are necessarily misinformation. You say that it’d be the journalist’s job to determine if they are or aren’t correct, but at the same time, the New York Post was effectively excised from social media precisely because it posted a story that “matched misinformation patterns” even though it was true. Their very ability to do what you’d want them to do was taken away - the article couldn’t even be shared online, the link was blacklisted.
If your solution doesn’t involve the government having correspondence with social media sites and making recommendations on what should or shouldn’t be removed then we’re in agreement and this entire exchange was a waste of our time, but you have to specify how exactly you’d implement this system of truth arbiters, because without that element of compulsion it breaks down immediately since there’s no enforcement mechanism in place. I simply leave these matters to the court of public opinion, but you’ve indicated that’s not satisfactory, so what is? You don’t want people to live a lie as a result of reading a false story, but the alternative to that is to limit their freedom in another way - covertly, by controlling the information they do get to see. Somebody at some point has to decide what that information actually is, and I believe it is dangerous as all hell to task the government with making that estimation. The only way to avoid that is to act after the fact, once a lie is exposed as a lie, but that’s what we already have now - Fox had to pay Dominion $787.5M in damages, thus acknowledging that it was spreading falsehoods.
Proper journalism is not perspective, is the picture as it is possible to see. It's reporting the facts, not run an agenda.
And again, it's impossible to have a conversation with you. You want to pretend I say there has to have a narrative followed and that I say that narrative is established by the government.
That's not what I said, you know that, and you know that perfectly. I keep correcting you that and you keep insisting. You don't argue in good faith.
It’s a pretty obvious conclusion based on what the thread is about and what’s being discussed - it’s about the government contacting social media in regards to specific pieces of content, which includes news stories. In fact, it did include a news story, as mentioned above. With that in mind, it was a pretty safe assumption to say you meant the government doing the filtering - if that’s not what you meant then there’s been a miscommunication somewhere along the line.
As for perspectives, not a day passes when a news item makes half the country happy and the other half upset. We’re not all made from one mold - we have different personalities, different priorities and a different idea on what’s good or bad for the public. You *can’t* avoid perspectives in media unless we’re talking about dry coverage along the lines of an accurate weather report - either it rained or it didn’t. Hell - I tend to feel a bit cold when everybody around me is sweating, so we likely wouldn’t agree on what a comfortable temperature outside is, let alone a more complex matter. Don’t you think you’re being a little reductive here?
