Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

You open the newspaper to an article on some subject that you know well, because your salary depends on it. In Tourre's case, finance. In mine, tech. You read the article and see that the journalist isn't a subject matter expert and has made an error about some fact. Often, the error is so small that it doesn't affect the story at all. I call these the "well, actually, some streets are sheltered from the rain" stories. In any case, you dismiss the entire story and stop reading it, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if your technical expertise somehow gave you insight into a place you've never been and a culture you've never interacted with. You turn the page, and forget the gaps in your own knowledge.

I don't believe it. Show me a quote from an authority at the NY Times admitting the paper has a "Socialist" bias.

> Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables.

A couple of years back I decided to highlight such lies to a group of people I was in regular online conversations with. Friends and people I have known for 20 to 30 years, not strangers. The effort and time required to research and gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate falsehoods in just one story per day was significant enough that I had to quit after a couple of months. Not to mention the fact that writing-up articles on these findings and then discussing them until people understood they had been lied to also consumed a ridiculous amount of time.

The problem with the press engaging in constant lies and manipulation is that the vast majority of the population (I'll guess 99%) consumes without questioning any of it. Which, in turn, means people, over time, develop twisted narratives of reality that serve no useful purpose and do nothing but cause damage to society. The roughly 3.3 million people in the US who might be wiser or take the time to dig for the truth are powerless in rectifying the lies and manipulation. Refer to my feathers into the wind analogy on this last point.

I sincerely doubt anyone would propose we should tolerate the level of lies and manipulation weaponized by mass media today. The difference with respect to 1807 is that everyone is now reachable via their phones and computers through myriad services, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube perhaps being the main culprits.

I do concede and fully understand that this is an area of law that requires very careful consideration and a soft touch. There isn't a simple fix. I don't like the idea of saying "well, just litigate using existing law" because of then massive asymmetry between these large corporations and the people. This approach actually harms anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire.

It would be almost impossible for the average Joe to go up against the major news sources except for the most egregious of cases (where a large law firm would take the case for a piece of the action). In other words, large news operators can utterly destroy your life and massively affect public perception and nothing ever happens to them. The simple proof of this is that they are full of lies today, which means they haven't been challenged and suffered enough financially to change their ways.

Sometimes I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough. IANAL, so I don't know how that could be detrimental. As a lay person it makes complete sense:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the truthful press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."