Dont be like Russia or China, free and fair press.

Who decides what is true or false?

That's the problem with an idea like this. There used to be a federal commission that checked the accuracy of news reporting, but it was dismantled - mostly because of the concern I just mentioned. Personally, I'd like to see news media create an independent commission so that they can police themselves and hold each other accountable to truthful reporting, but there has to be a public push for that. The public is so divided right now, that it would be nearly impossible to implement right now.

Is the Earth round or flat? lets start there.

Who do you think decides what is true or false?

Or are there no such things?

There are several different ways to answer that question. On a philosophical level, it can get rather convoluted, so I'll stick with the practical.

Each individual has to decide what is true for themselves. This isn't to say that reality is mutable and can be wished into whatever form you please. Instead, it recognizes that we ultimately decide who and what to trust for ourselves.

I trust science, experts, evidence, and facts. These things tend to be independently verifiable, even if I don't have the ability to verify them for myself. I also tend to doubt myself, analyze what I believe, and pick it apart. Most people don't think like that.

For many people, the world is black and white and right or wrong and there are no shades of gray or moral ambiguity. And when they decide to trust someone? They don't question them again. When they decide something is true, they don't bother asking themselves if they had made a mistake. So when Donald Trump tells them he's going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, we know it's going to happen - evidence to the contrary be damned.

Anyone can have an "opinion" but if some fox news caster says he has "proof" the election was stolen, then fails to provide said proof. Off to jail he goes.

Again, who decides which proof is admissible and which proof is bogus? If it's any aspect of government, then it runs counter freedom of speach.

You are both right. Journalism, so rarely practiced these days by the 24 hour news networks, can be subjective depending on one’s personal beliefs.

True reporting requires time and resources to present a full picture of the story. I have in my days watched as corporations buy up newspapers and networks not inform the public as a whole, but to make money for the stockholders. Time for developing a story is consider lost revenue.

Then the fairness doctrine was killed to make room for customer specific viewing. Think for a minute that Fox and MSNBC don’t cater to a specific audience? Even the news sites I go to cater to my progressive nature.

Sad to me is that John Oliver and his researchers are the best news source today and he’s a comic.

Some of my earliest memories was my father covering the Paris peace talks for his newspaper. I was allowed to sit and listen to him interview governors and senators back when politicians didn’t run to their favorite studio knowing that there would be no calling out when they lie or “misrepresent” the truth.

TV killed the need to be competent to get elected and the internet killed newspapers (no ad revenue to pay for actual talented reporters)

I love it when people put Fox and MSNBC side by side as if their level of partisanship is equal... it's quaint.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem; I'm pointing out that the solution this individual is proposing is inherently flawed. It not only violates the free press to have a federal agency decide what is true and was is not, but it is also ineffectual as it's impossible to penalize a news station for selectively quoting individuals who represent the views they want to push.

Is the Earth round or is it flat? Let's ask a Republican who won the 2020 election and find out... Because there is a LARGE minority of people who still insist that Joe Biden lost, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. No government agency trying to push the narrative that Joe Biden won will be believed by these people.

The real problem is rooted in our political process - everything snowballs from there.

What is really quaint is watching yet another person fail reading comprehension. Nowhere did I compare Fox to MSMBC other than both cater to their audience. I made no judgement, like you did, about the quality of their programming.

Fox and MSNBC are the two news channels everyone pulls out of their pockets when they want to talk partisanship in the news. It's a meme. We're on a friggin site about memes. Please don't tell me you didn't know what you were alluding to when you used those examples...

Care to address the rest of what I said?

to have a federal agency decide what is true and was is not"""

Who said anything about a "federal agency"?..... how do we determine is someone is guilty of liable or not?