Truth in Media & Politics – Combating the Dangerous Disinformation Pandemic that is Ripping our Country Apart

» Laws and Regulation:

• Regulation of radio, television, wire, satellite and cable Media outlets by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) per its authority under the respective statutes authorizing the FCC to regulate each of those sectors, including passage of additional Regulations as follows:
• Implement Transparent Labeling requirements for Media outlets in all sectors, and all forms of media, whether radio, television, wire, satellite or cable, that are regulated by the FCC, to prevent misleading use of the “News” label with respect to content that is not true News.   Read more +

  To avoid misleading the public, this should include requirements that all Opinion Content (including on television) be clearly labeled and designated as “OPINION,” that Entertainment be clearly marked “ENTERTAINMENT,” and that advertising be clearly marked “ADVERTISING.”

  In addition, the FCC should forbid use of the term or label “News” or “Breaking News” in connection with any Opinion content, Entertainment, Advertising or other content other than actual News produced by Journalists in a separate News Division of the outlet, subject to Professional Standards & Practices and Ethical requirements consist with the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

  The practice of some partisan Television outlets of displaying a label or ticker at the bottom of the screen saying “Breaking News!” should be strictly prohibited during Opinion shows, talk shows, or other programming delivered by TV Personalities rather than actual Journalists reporting factual News.

• Regulations prohibiting non-News Media Outlets from adopting a Misleading Corporate or Business Name containing the word “News.”   Read More +

  Consider prohibiting Media Outlets which generate the overwhelming majority [exact proportion to be determined by the FCC] of their revenue from sensationalized Opinion content, primarily content in the nature of Partisan advertising or promotion of a Partisan point of view, or other non-News content, from including the word “News” in their Corporate or Business Name.

• Consider re-adopting a modern version the “Fairness Doctrine,” consistent with First Amendment precedents.   Read More +

  The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC Regulation which governed Broadcast TV from 1949 until 1987, requiring all holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. This Regulation, as enforced by the FCC, seemed to work quite well in keeping extreme partisanship and related false content out of Broadcast TV for all of that time. We advocate revisiting a version of this Rule consistent with current First Amendment doctrine.

• Passage of Federal and State laws with the purpose Combating the Dangerous Disinformation Pandemic that is ripping our Country apart, subject to and within the confines of protecting First Amendment rights and freedoms:
• Congress should pass a law similar to the Honest Ads Act (SB 1356 introduced May 9, 2019 in the 116th Congress).   Read More +

  The purpose of the Honest Ads Act is “to enhance transparency and accountability for online political advertisements by requiring those who purchase and publish such ads to disclose information about the advertisements and their sponsors to the public,” similar to the disclosure requirements imposed on political advertising on television (e.g. “Paid for by _____” and “Approved by _____”).

• Consider Legislation narrowing the scope of immunity from civil liability enjoyed by Social Media and internet companies with respect to third party content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.   Read More +

  The very significant role of Social Media and the Internet in spreading and amplifying alarming levels of Disinformation, including Information Warfare promulgated by foreign governments, has been widely documented. The economic incentives of such Social Media platforms to allow the targeted spread of content including sensational Disinformation (which draws more Ad clicks and thus revenues for the Social Media company) have also been widely documented.

  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), provides, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This means that an internet company, such as Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter, cannot be held legally liable, as could a publisher or speaker, for defamation or other causes of action with respect to any content generated by others that is posted to or shared on their platforms. This includes an exemption from liability for the platform’s own actions in allowing, moderating, or removing any such content that they may deem inconsistent with their private terms of use, or for any other reason. The law, as amended, however, does require internet companies still to remove material that is illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement, and material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws.

  Congressional intent in passing Section 230, was to encourage and avoid chilling Free Speech of internet users, by giving internet companies a “Safe Harbor” from Publisher’s liability for false or defamatory third party content in the event they attempt to moderate or remove demonstrably false or harmful content but fail to catch all of it.

  A line of case precedents before that time had held that an internet company could be deemed a “Publisher” subject to liability as a Publisher for defamatory content if they attempted to moderate or remove any content on their Platform, but failed to catch some of it. Congress passed Section 230, intending to allow and encourage internet companies to engage in content moderation to protect the public from harmful content without fear of becoming liable as a Publisher for failing to catch every bit of it, recognizing that it would be unrealistic to expect Social Media and other internet Platforms to review every post or tweet.

  Consistent with the intent of Congress to protect and encourage free speech on the internet, while also encouraging internet providers to engage in content moderation to protect the public from the growing dangers of harmful Disinformation and Information Warfare without fear of full liability as a Publisher for ALL content, we endorse the suggestion made by Richard Stengel, former Editor of Time and former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. In his book, “Information Wars” (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2019), he suggests the following:

  “[R]evising Section 230 must encourage them [the internet platforms] to make good-faith efforts to police their content, without making them responsible for every phrase or sentence on their services. It’s unrealistic to expect these platforms to vet every tweet or post. One way to do this is to revise the language of the CDA [Section 230] to say that no platform that makes a good faith effort to fulfill its responsibility to delete harmful content and provide information to users about that content can be liable for the damage that it does.”

  As Mr. Stengel suggests, that would be a start.

• Federal laws enhancing Broadband Service, limiting over-concentration of media ownership in certain markets, and other measures,   Read More +

  to address and rectify the current lack of fair and equal access to Credible Media Sources in many rural areas and other areas that are underserved and do not have equal access to Cable and other Communications Media.

  We support the American Jobs Plan & Infrastructure Program currently before Congress, in part because it contains robust provisions to strengthen Broadband, which will bring equity and greater access to rural and other areas that are currently underserved and lack equal access to Cable and other Communications Media. See polls and more detail on this Law under Policies we Support to bring Fairness, Good Jobs, and a Level Playing Field for the Middle Class »

» Support and Strengthen Credible Additional Media Outlets
   for underserved areas

VOCM America was founded in part to try to help address the existing lack of credible and nonpartisan Media Outlets accessible in certain rural areas, small towns, and other areas currently lacking equal access to Cable and other Communications Media. We are currently accessible via internet to anyone who has a cell phone, mobile hot spot and computer, or other means to access the internet. As we grow, our reach and accessibility will expand.

» More Robust Fact-Checking Tools, and Media Literacy
   Education & Training Programs, Free for all Americans

These programs are crucially needed to help us learn to recognize, protect ourselves from, and combat the dangerous Disinformation that is being spread by certain media, politicians, extremists, and some foreign governments.

» Counseling & Mental Health Programs

to help Families and individuals recover and deal with family members or other close associates who have become radicalized by dangerous Disinformation online, on television or other media, or otherwise