I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there *were* a law against news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is truth?', and 'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently, Zimbabwe) to persecute reporters on the grounds that they were 'libeling the government'. I think there is a distinction between truth as an absolute, the twisted wording required to avoid libel in the uk, and deliberately lieing to people who believe you are a source of
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:16 PM, Trei, Peter <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> was seen to say: truth about the world they can't see. The UK has some pretty strong rules in this area - for instance, a newsreader can't be seen to promote (advertise) a product, as a viewer could confuse marketing (which is always a bit suspect) with "news" (which is supposed to be unbiassed and as accurate as the broadcaster can make it) and in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant - not fun at all.
'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways. Indeed - but (at least in a free press) there is supposed to be a distinction between "marketing" "news" and "propaganda". Of course, freedom of the presses has only ever been available to those who own presses....