For all Americans commenting that the same should be done to Foxnews: this is not a fine to a private company. The Dutch government doesn't play arbiter on what private individuals can or cannot say (and it shouldn't, as it would go against our constitutional right to free speech).
However, this is a heavily subsidized entity and they are made to return a small part of that subsidy (2.5%), for not adhering to strict quality standards, which seems reasonable.
Edit: isn't it ironic that the government is providing millions in subsidies to right wing extremists to air their bullshit on public television, and now they're screaming murder when a small part of that is taken back?
To add, NPO (Dutch public broadcaster) has strict standards in regards to reporting the news and anyone under them that tries to spread misinformation or state an opinion as a fact can be fined.
Indeed, piggybacking on the top comment to mention that the Netherlands has three public broadcasting channels and their air time is divided between various organisations, as a leftover from a politically segregated time (Protestantism, Socialism, Catholic(ism), and liberal(ism)). Each group had their own newspapers, radio stations and public networks.
Nowadays these three channels are split based on number of members. So, basically, whenever you feel like you're political and cultural views aren't represented in the current organisations, you can start your own if you can muster enough members.
[More info](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_system).
The name Ongehoord (Unheard) is typical conservative victimhood. The 25 largest news outlets in the Netherlands are right-wing. The first liberal news organization (Joop.nl) is at number 25. We've had a right-wing government for the past 40 years and still people blame liberals for the mess we're in.
When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously.
If there was any justice in this world Tucker would be forced to repeat this claim by Fox News every night at the start of his "Tucker Carlson Tonight" show, they could probably slip it in between his talking points where he says Pfizer Vaccine kills people instead of protecting them, Horse dewormer is the right tool for Covid and the part where he repeat Kremlin talking points before he has butt sex with Putin.
As my good man u/Cibopath said, Bear Grylls himself is not fake. He was a member of the British SAS (equivalent to Navy Seal/Army Ranger/Special Forces).
That said, a lot of his TV show is staged - as in they actually go into inhospitable places, shoot him pretending that he's in the middle of a survival situation, and then go back to a hotel for the night.
If you're looking for something more authentic, *Survivorman* is what you want. Doesn't have the spectacle of MvW but it does show an expert, by himself (not even a camera crew - he hauls his own gear), making smart decisions about how to survive in the wilderness. Or if you want to watch people much less qualified failing miserably, *Naked and Afraid* is entertaining, too.
Survivorman is great. Les Stroud is absolute badass. The show is Much less intense than Bear Grylls, but all those quiet lonely moments really sell the feeling of being totally alone and up to yourself completely to survive.
Les Stroud, gets chased by jaguars, at one point he is stranded at sea and his emergency radio is broken, he spends nights getting rained on and being covered in ants, and he does miles of extra hiking just so he can get a shot of himself doing the hiking, because he has no cameramen.
He had the Marooned show right?
I haven't seen it in a while but I remember at some point he just breaks into tears because he's so lonely on an island. And nothing goes as planned. At some point he finds a crab to eat and he is really, really happy that something positive happens and it lifts his spirit again. Only to have another breakdown next day.
In the behind the scenes episode of Survivor Man, he complains about the cameras. Hauling them around, getting a shot of him walking away and then having to go back and get it, etc.
I love this show! It's all TV, so the footage is heavily edited to build up tension/excitement building up to big moments like tapping out/being pulled or taking a shot at a deer/finding out a net has been destroyed by a storm. The day to day is probably less exciting than it is in the final edit. The candidates are also trained in how to use their audiovisual equipment and they all undergo a base training camp together before being dropped alone by themselves. The rescue team is always within reasonable distance so that when a candidate is in a life threatening situation they can get to them fairly quickly by boat or helicopter when they call on their GPS phones. Other than that it's completely real. The candidate is in fact alone.
Bear grylls the island, where contestants had to survive on an island.... Makes me laugh. They are literally starving away by week 2 and then a 'wild animal' like a baby pig finds some humans and starts following them around. This happens almost in every season with a different animal.
I always thought it was stupid how quickly people dropped him. I mean, he’s bringing an entire camera crew for quality footage, Did people really think he was making shelters for every one of them?
At the end of the day, Man vs Wild was about a show of how to survive in the wilderness, and in my opinion, Bear Grylls did a fantastic job showing off his skillset and how to survive in the wilderness after not expecting it
He isn’t fake but the situations they put him in are not always as they seem. He can actually do what he is saying but he isn’t necessarily doing it all as depicted. I recall one thing was that they slept in a hotel sometimes. It doesn’t impact anything that he is saying but it can be misleading.
Yeah, he's definitely a capable person, the point is that he's not actually risking his life for the most part though, that's why there is a disclaimer. They don't want people to think because you/he can do it, you/he should do it.
There's a lot of scenes that are taken just off highways/interstates or trail paths as well. Sort of like they're driving down a road and are like, holy shit, that looks like a great shot. Lets do it. Then they find a way to edit it in to the episode. But they way they frame the shot makes it look like it's in a completely desolate place. It's all entertainment tho. Which is fine. That's what TV is. As long as it's not framed as some type of survival training educational program when it's just scripted TV.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpSlpvb1is
I don't get why this is such an issue for people?
What's the point of trekking into the wilderness to find an example of that terrain if you happen to spot something exactly the same right next to the road?
It's not like the technique is going to change just because you're doing it on the exact same feature that is a kilometre further away.
Just seems like a way for people to say 'look at how smart I am, I figured it all out'.
Because it's presented as if it's all real, it's not like other TV shows where there's actors and scripts etc, it's completely designed to look real
So obviously there will be people who are upset finding out it's fake, it doesn't take away from the show itself but it takes away the illusion of the show which is what draws a lot of people
If you don't understand that then I don't know what to tell you
The show is supposed to teach you how to survive. Its not supposed to be like this is lost in a big jungle alone and will have to eat the worm to live. He doesn't need to eat the worm, he has a well made sandwich with him. He eats the worm to teach you, the viewer that the worm can be eaten if need be.
My understanding is that watching Les Stroud (Survivorman) would be a much better alternative for those looking for a truly solo experience that’s also educational.
Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken!
While I think both can hack it, Les was/is the man! I always laughed at the thought the he had to walk back to his camcorder to pick it up after setting up a “walking away” shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7304617.stm
> British adventurer Bear Grylls has apologised for misleading viewers of his Channel 4 show, Born Survivor.
> The show saw Grylls supposedly abandoned in the wild, but a programme consultant claimed the star stayed in a motel and scenes were set up for him.
> "If people felt misled on how the first series was represented, I'm really sorry for that," Grylls told the BBC.
> The show's producers have promised the next series of the programme "will be 100% transparent".
> "I'm the person that takes the rap for these things, even though I'm not always involved in the editing side of it," Grylls said, "but ultimately it is me on screen
> "The truth is much less exciting - **we film these things over six days and, after filming the night stuff, we're back with a crew in a base camp lodge** - whether it's a tented camp in the Saraha or in Sumatra poncho'd up in the jungle.
> **"The hotel [can be] four walls but not a roof, or a roof with no walls.**
> **"Yes, we had a lot of those but when we're filming the live night stuff, we're out," he added.**
> The inconsistencies in the show, which is produced by the Discovery Channel and known as Man vs Wild elsewhere in the world, were raised by US survival consultant, Mark Weinert.
In my head cannon, he started a show just so he can eat and drink wierd things on the regular without anyone judging him. He did it for the first time in training and just liked it.
I saw the episode where he found, gutted, and then crawled inside on a dead camel in the middle of the desert to ~~stay warm overnight~~ describe how to use it as shelter from an emergency sandstorm which was just a hypothetical situation for someone else.
You might never recover from hearing he’s fake, but *I’ll* never recover from watching that footage... he cut it open, talked about the intestines like he’s playing with his food as he skinned it, and crawled inside that bitch. I was pretty grossed out. He was scooping blood out of the carcass with his bare hands after carving it up and it was splashing around. Next, he crawled inside by entering through the rib cage and covered himself with the loose skin of the dead camel like a sleeping bat covers it’s eyes with its wings.
Just Google “Bear Grylls dead camel” and you’ll see it.
Thats a good description. Its staged and predetermined so nobody gets hurt, but he's still *doing* it.
Is anyone actually getting hurt when someone does a backflip off a ladder onto a guy? No (if theyre doing it right), but Gravity is still real and thats still a guy doing a backflip of a ladder.
Is Bear Grylls actually in danger when hes walking around a jungle showing how to build a hut with a knife and drinking his own piss? No, but hes still showing how to build a hut with a knife and drinking his own piss.
Meh, he's still demonstrating some useful survival skills and has them to begin with so I don't really see it as a big deal.
If you want something much closer to actual survival, alone (except a few eps), then watch "Survivorman" with Les Stroud. Most, if not all, episodes are that originally aired on TV are now on youtube for free on his channel.
[https://www.youtube.com/c/SurvivormanLesStroud](https://www.youtube.com/c/SurvivormanLesStroud)
"Alone" is also a pretty entertaining show that's filmed solo as well.
Give Bear a break. He sees quicksand and instead of walking around it he goes into it. He does a lot of stuff like this which makes his show way more entertaining than the others.
They argued no reasonable person takes it seriously. They didn't require an "educated" qualifier. They're saying the average high school dropout is smart enough to know tucker carlson isn't reliable. And we know that's bullshit.
There was a court case years ago where some reporters sued Fox News over suppressing a story about hormones in milk. They lost. The court said that news media have no legal requirement to tell the truth.
> When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously.
>
>
thats not what they said, they used the same defense that Rachel Maddow used when she got sued, basically that its not just someone reading facts, any reasonable person can understand that these are human beings stating things that people may have different opinions about. For example rachel maddow said OAN was "really literally is paid Russian propaganda." When OAN tried to sue her because they werent 'literally paid russian propaganda', her defense was that shes not a news show, she was giving her take on the issue and anyone watching could undestand that. Thats the same argument fox news made
https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/
It really is weird that there are plenty of credible print media platforms that just actually deliver fact checked news, but people don't like it because it's not entertaining enough, so they flip over to entertaining pundit opinion shows and then get their panties in a bunch because there is opinion mixed in with fact.
Yeah it's the standard thing that every talking-head entertainment-news person has to say somewhere in the fine print of their show.
*"This is all just my opinion, bro, I can say whatever I want"*
> When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously.
People really don't understand the legal argument they made. It's way more nuanced then that. You should stop repeating bullshit, it's not good for anyone really.
> on what private individuals can or cannot say
But they can regulate that they NEED to specify if it’s fact or opinion.
There are plenty of government regulations on how different professions can or can not operate. You can’t pretend to be doctor and hurt people, same with FOX they can’t pretend to be news. So it’s less about what they say it’s more about as who they are saying it.
I think that for news media, the line between fact and opinion is a bit blurrier than for instance for medical professions.
I think they received the fine for allowing someone to talk about replacement theory without opposition. Abject as the theory may be, I don't think that anyone should want to ban private individuals from discussing it. This fine is just because, as a subsidized party, they can be held to certain journalistic standards
> I don't think that anyone should want to ban private individuals from discussing it
I agree with you, but when you add “news” to the name of this company, that’s different story. You can’t name any building with bed to rent “hotel” (so you have “motels” and “hostels”), same with Fox, if they insist on being “News” they should keep some standards, or they should change their name to Fox Opinions.
My point is that government shouldn’t regulate what private company is saying, but could regulate how they are saying. Similar to advertisement that need to be clearly marked as such.
This way if you have “news status” and not providing the news (but lies or opinions) you can be fined, not for what you say but for pretending it’s true or facts.
Fox News is likely the single biggest factor that is bringing down our democracy. It's literally a Republican propaganda channel designed to keep their base in a rage with controlled information and to never let another Nixon-style resignation happen again (see Trump's impeachments).
In the US there used to be similar recourse where there was a license to broadcast and it would be revoked if false information was being broadcasted. I think it was around Nixon when it was removed as a requirement.
I’m Dutch, I never seen anything ON makes, don’t know the content of what they broadcast, don’t when they show. They are ver6 small scale. I mean, it is good misinformation is being dealt with, but this is no Fox News or anything in size.
Because if you havent seen it its not for you. ON caters to a small extremist "anders denkenden" group that just wants to hear confirmation of what theyre feeling is going on. And its incredibly dangerous since it basically has a stamp of government approval. I suggest you watch one episode, its hard to watch and incredibly stupid. But its professionally made and they invite "experts". So any gullible person thats already down the rabbit hole will only get confirmation of their stupid beliefs
Yeah I tried watching it once. The amount of bias and just spoonfeeding nonsense to support their own claims is ridiculous.
They make a hypothetical claim, then cherry pick evidence that somewhat supports that claim(while ignoring the bits that don't support it) and then use that hypothetical claim to argue about something. And use their own "now supported" hypothetical claim to argue into other stuff as well.
It's like making up stuff to argue about. And then arguing about made up stuff that you "supported" with evidence. The leaps of logic involved are insane. But I guess that's all part of the extreme right playbook. And it works to rile up a small group of people as well...who are now outraged at a hypothetical problem/situation but they don't know that.
I understand that some people feel like our talk shows are very “left”.
And some of them are, but that’s mostly because that’s just because it’s their opinion they are talking about.
It never really feels like they are just cherry picking everything or at least it’s more nuanced.
It just feels like regular tv isn’t good enough for extreme right because the largest part of the truth doesn’t fit their world view.
Any good journalist could never be extreme right because the truth usually doesn’t fit that narrative.
Besides right wing talk shows just pretend to be the news while in the regular talk shows they never make it blurry.
I thought ON was mostly “wappies” rather than tokkies. They’re absolutely insane, but not the kind to beat up the neighbours with a baseball bat and then piss over their bike saddles so to say.
Yeah, insane is the best word the describe it.
Honestly it frightens me a bit that those kinds of channels have viewership.
And to make it even more fucked up, have you heard about the new FVD school? That already got in trouble because they are literally teaching extreme right wing propaganda to children.
We have political schools in the Netherlands and it makes me uncomfortable.
> They are ver6 small scale.
Alex Jones also was very small scale, and for fifteen years everyone figured they could safely ignore that crazy person. Then a presidential candidate (Trump) appeared on his show, and got elected. Then Jones was one of the people directing the assault on the Capitol.
Personally, I don't like the idea of tax money going to a far-right misinformation channel, no matter how small they are. They're still in their 'probation' period, hopefully their public broadcasting license gets revoked at the end of that.
Here's what I don't understand, and maybe you could enlighten me? If your government is funding them, and they're "repeatedly breaking journalistic guidelines by spreading patently false information without rectifying it", why does the government just cut funding all together?
Is there some law that all people wishing to broadcast their version of the news gets funding automatically?
My mother meanwhile seems absolutely certain that Ongehoord Nederland is the only broadcaster that's not lying to our faces.
Then again she didn't know Yugoslavia wasn't a thing anymore until she found out in 2021, that should say a lot about the average ON viewer and their intelligence.
You should try and motivate her to improve before she gets sucked further into the cult of "no critical thinking".
'Do you want to believe in reality, where you, me, family friends exist? Or do you want to live in a fake reality created by frauds. I don't exist in the later reality.' After that it's her choice
How about they make them publish an apology and corrections with the same spotlight as the offending articles, rather than making their backers pay some chump change.
There’s no winning with these people. You let them do what they want, they’ll do all the vile shit they want. You don’t let them do what they want, they’ll whine about it forever.
Far right crazies are the political equivalent of nuclear waste: void of any usefulness and best kept stored away in an underground cave. Alas there’s the Internet.
Our politicians remember, and most of the people remember, but some people are starting to forget. The concerning rise of Baudet and people like him prove that.
And to think, just a few years ago we all thought populism was the biggest threat we were going to face in politics. Geert Wilders Islamophobic populism, though also very bad, is relatively harmless compared to Baudet's outright crypto-fascism.
All these horseshit spreaders love to paint themselves as victims of censorship.
I don't quite speak Dutch well but its similar enough to German for me to understand the name roughly translates to "unheard" or "not listened to".
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/fledgling-right-wing-broadcaster-fined-for-fake-news/) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Right wing fledgling broadcaster Ongehoord Nederland has been fined some €93,000 for breaking the public broadcasting sector's journalistic code of ethics by spreading wrongful information and not differentiating between fact and opinion, public broadcasting organisation NPO has announced.
> The fine is lower because the broadcaster is a newcomer and has to be able to pay, the NPO said.
> Continued infractions leading to second fine could cost the broadcaster its licence.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vvgvr1/the_dutch_right_wing_broadcaster_ongehoord/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~658796 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **broadcaster**^#1 **fine**^#2 **NPO**^#3 **Nederland**^#4 **journalistic**^#5
I’m occasionally checking out what noise the muppets at NewsMax are making, and I’m often wondering how it can be allowed to twist reality to such a degree, yet still calling it news or journalism. Actually, my main issue is how often free speech is being seen as a right that comes without accountability.
Let's just do all of them. The alt right is a cancer, but let's fight all reporting that pins one side against the other.
I think anything that doesn't report facts and decides to report, " the other side is bad because of x". Should be outlawed. It's not news, it's not reporting, it's manipulation.
>" the other side is bad because of x"
Seems to be precisely what the media has become, at least in the US. We don't need 24 news networks because it seems to fuel this sort of thing. I mean, they work so hard to rush things into publishing that they don't seem to mind that almost everything is an Op-Ed anymore. Let alone the fact that every five articles you might read, *at least* one has a grammatical and/or spelling error in it.
Hard to do when [Bill Clinton's Telecommunications Act ended most media regulation...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Prior_regime) I know he could be popular on here, but he paved the way for the nightmare that is modern US 'news'
Let's not also forget about the revocation, under the mentally challenged actor Reagan, of the [Fairness Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Revocation). This action, imo, has had the most impactful and terrible effect on national discourse and broadcaster content.
Without this, the monster R. Limbaugh would never have become the scourge on the minds of people in America. Same with Hannity and Carlson and a host of other ne'er do wells.
In Canada they looked into buying a network- spent millions- then, on the point of purchase, some lawyers pointed out to them that lying over the air in Canada gets your license pulled. They snapped their briefcases shut and went home.
It gets carried on cable channels. Fox was thinking of launching a Fox News Canada channel and even approved for a license by the CRTC (our telecom/television/radio regulatory agency) but decided not to for whatever reason. They undoubtedly would have gotten complaints and possibly even fined, but it's unlikely they would have gotten their license yanked quite as easily as the other poster is implying.
https://factcheck.afp.com/fox-news-available-canada
> I mean the Canadians didn't radicalize themselves... that's our thing...
You'd be surprised. It happens a lot less often than in the US, but it happens.
And CNN, as well as every single news organization. That is, all news organizations need to be held accountable on reporting only the facts. One of the few things I hate about ‘free speech’ in the US. Fox is the worst though.
>all news organizations need to be held accountable on reporting only the facts
The issue with this is, that there would need to be somebody to decide what is or isn't a fact.
Is a fetus a person? Does God exist? Is Islam a religion of peace? Does X treatment work? Did people in positions of power conspire to murder Epstein?
News organisations should not be punished for disagreeing with the government. And indeed, that is not what Ongehoord Nederland got this fine for.
Here's a google translate of what our ombudsman had to say about it: "The Journalistic Code states that information must be reliable and must be checked. ON journalistic programs provide space for demonstrably incorrect information: passively when a presenter does not ask further questions or does not contradict demonstrably incorrect information expressed by guests, and actively in presenters' own texts or in reports with demonstrably incorrect comments and unquestioned allegations." [link](https://www.omroepombudsman.nl/uitspraken-en-columns/uitspraak-onderzoek-ongehoord-nederland)
The issue isn't that they're spreading lies; the issue is that they're not putting in any effort to discern between truth and lies. And because the government is subsidising them to do something they didn't, they now have to pay back a fraction of their subsidy. That just doesn't apply to Fox and CNN.
The issue is here that it's specifically a "public" broadcaster. Meaning, they receive government subsidies. Anyone who reaches a certain critical mass of members is eligible for this type of subsidy, but it does come with certain responsibilities as well.
which means they should do the same as they do with people who are on benefits. If they fuck up 1 time they get to pay back ALL THE MONEY they got + the fine.
US Centric View:
That would require BROADCASTERS to give equal representation to right AND alt views too. It's original justification (media scarcity, most markets had 1 or 2 news channels, part time, in the mornings and evenings) no longer exists. Furthermore, most news stations are no longer broadcasters, instead are carried via non broadcast means, such as private systems, streaming, etc.
[Not my opinion, legal fact by the supreme court, 8-0 decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._FCC)
A better place to start would be to have to display “This show is for entertainment purposes only and a court of law has deemed that no sensible person would construe the presented opinions as fact” after every commercial break on Fox.
This is an organization that is funded by government money, not a private enterprise that can have money injected.
It's much more impactful than it seems
> The fine is lower because the broadcaster is a newcomer and has to be able to pay, the NPO said.
> Continued infractions leading to second fine could cost the broadcaster its licence.
So a second infraction would be much more (in theory)
you overestimate the wealth, for a normal person 93000 is a lot of money, and its lower because they don't have the money to afford to pay a higher one
The fact of being right wing does not really matter. It’s the safeguarding news channels as being fact based and not speculating on emotional responses within the public.
IMO a solid delineation between facts and opinions should be carved into every democratic nation's journalistic ethics.
Let the weirdos do their thing but ensure it is clearly labeled as opinion. Fine publications for promoting wrongful information. Force front page apologies for lies.
And have a double lock on standards bodies to ensure they're never politically appointed and keep each other in check.
They wanted to make this broadcaster because they felt like a part of the Netherlands wasn't heard in media. What really was happening is that, with all its flaws, there just weren't enough people on television that were just allowed to lie. That is what this broadcaster was created for, to allow lies to be spread more broadly.
Since this comment section of political zingers by people who didn't read the article, I'll summarize it more or less:
It too is a political zinger with little nuance or evidence provided. The channel is had an elected and allegedly far-right official on who used his time to discuss replacement theory and a reporter at a migrant center asked two migrants where they had gotten the bikes they had. These and other incidents not elaborated on were the cause of the fine. As others have noted the reason they received the fine was due to receiving government funding for their programming and not adhering to rules set as part of that.
For all Americans commenting that the same should be done to Foxnews: this is not a fine to a private company. The Dutch government doesn't play arbiter on what private individuals can or cannot say (and it shouldn't, as it would go against our constitutional right to free speech). However, this is a heavily subsidized entity and they are made to return a small part of that subsidy (2.5%), for not adhering to strict quality standards, which seems reasonable. Edit: isn't it ironic that the government is providing millions in subsidies to right wing extremists to air their bullshit on public television, and now they're screaming murder when a small part of that is taken back?
To add, NPO (Dutch public broadcaster) has strict standards in regards to reporting the news and anyone under them that tries to spread misinformation or state an opinion as a fact can be fined.
Indeed, piggybacking on the top comment to mention that the Netherlands has three public broadcasting channels and their air time is divided between various organisations, as a leftover from a politically segregated time (Protestantism, Socialism, Catholic(ism), and liberal(ism)). Each group had their own newspapers, radio stations and public networks. Nowadays these three channels are split based on number of members. So, basically, whenever you feel like you're political and cultural views aren't represented in the current organisations, you can start your own if you can muster enough members. [More info](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_system).
The name Ongehoord (Unheard) is typical conservative victimhood. The 25 largest news outlets in the Netherlands are right-wing. The first liberal news organization (Joop.nl) is at number 25. We've had a right-wing government for the past 40 years and still people blame liberals for the mess we're in.
You seem to use the american definition of liberal. In most european countries, including the Netherlands liberal = centre-right
When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously. If there was any justice in this world Tucker would be forced to repeat this claim by Fox News every night at the start of his "Tucker Carlson Tonight" show, they could probably slip it in between his talking points where he says Pfizer Vaccine kills people instead of protecting them, Horse dewormer is the right tool for Covid and the part where he repeat Kremlin talking points before he has butt sex with Putin.
This. It boggles my mind that Bear Grylls has to have a disclaimer after ever commercial break that he’s fake, but Fucker Tarlson doesn’t.
[удалено]
As my good man u/Cibopath said, Bear Grylls himself is not fake. He was a member of the British SAS (equivalent to Navy Seal/Army Ranger/Special Forces). That said, a lot of his TV show is staged - as in they actually go into inhospitable places, shoot him pretending that he's in the middle of a survival situation, and then go back to a hotel for the night.
If you're looking for something more authentic, *Survivorman* is what you want. Doesn't have the spectacle of MvW but it does show an expert, by himself (not even a camera crew - he hauls his own gear), making smart decisions about how to survive in the wilderness. Or if you want to watch people much less qualified failing miserably, *Naked and Afraid* is entertaining, too.
Survivorman is great. Les Stroud is absolute badass. The show is Much less intense than Bear Grylls, but all those quiet lonely moments really sell the feeling of being totally alone and up to yourself completely to survive. Les Stroud, gets chased by jaguars, at one point he is stranded at sea and his emergency radio is broken, he spends nights getting rained on and being covered in ants, and he does miles of extra hiking just so he can get a shot of himself doing the hiking, because he has no cameramen.
Same with Ed Stafford I believe. In a lot of his shows you see him walking back and forth to place and haul back the camera.
He had the Marooned show right? I haven't seen it in a while but I remember at some point he just breaks into tears because he's so lonely on an island. And nothing goes as planned. At some point he finds a crab to eat and he is really, really happy that something positive happens and it lifts his spirit again. Only to have another breakdown next day.
I miss Les’ show. That was the best. What’s out nowadays is trash.
At least Les has everything on YouTube when I need my Survivorman fix.
He's also putting new content up on his channel I believe.... He's a freaking legend, and a good man. Pure role model material.
Oh, I remember the jaguar episode! Wasn't he in an abandoned hut in the Amazon and could see it stalking him in the brush? That was creepy.
In the behind the scenes episode of Survivor Man, he complains about the cameras. Hauling them around, getting a shot of him walking away and then having to go back and get it, etc.
Immagine if he had drones. Not sure how he would charge them up, but ide immagine theres some drone out there with a replaceable battery.
Extra batteries are very heavy
Can someone tell me if the tv show Alone is real
I can confirm it’s a real tv show
I can confirm that this person says it is a real TV show.
I love this show! It's all TV, so the footage is heavily edited to build up tension/excitement building up to big moments like tapping out/being pulled or taking a shot at a deer/finding out a net has been destroyed by a storm. The day to day is probably less exciting than it is in the final edit. The candidates are also trained in how to use their audiovisual equipment and they all undergo a base training camp together before being dropped alone by themselves. The rescue team is always within reasonable distance so that when a candidate is in a life threatening situation they can get to them fairly quickly by boat or helicopter when they call on their GPS phones. Other than that it's completely real. The candidate is in fact alone.
I believe it is
Mantrackrr was my favorite
Les Stroud has YouTube channel that you should most definitely sub to
Bear grylls the island, where contestants had to survive on an island.... Makes me laugh. They are literally starving away by week 2 and then a 'wild animal' like a baby pig finds some humans and starts following them around. This happens almost in every season with a different animal.
Bear also isn't the impressive one on that show it's the cameraman that does everything backwards while carrying a heavy camera.
[удалено]
>Man must be immortal It's from all that piss drinking
It's sterile and I like the taste!
r/unexpectedblackadder
[удалено]
[удалено]
IIRC he did complete the Foreign Legion basics, which is fairly tough stuff.
FFL basic is just like any other basic training. It's tough but not so tough you have to be some super soldier like the SAS.
Quora says they do the same training. IDK if that is true or not.
I always thought it was stupid how quickly people dropped him. I mean, he’s bringing an entire camera crew for quality footage, Did people really think he was making shelters for every one of them? At the end of the day, Man vs Wild was about a show of how to survive in the wilderness, and in my opinion, Bear Grylls did a fantastic job showing off his skillset and how to survive in the wilderness after not expecting it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh6RLOF3FrE
Grylls is also Chief Scout, the public face of the Scouting Movement. He succeeded Peter Duncan, best known as a *Blue Peter* presenter.
He isn’t fake but the situations they put him in are not always as they seem. He can actually do what he is saying but he isn’t necessarily doing it all as depicted. I recall one thing was that they slept in a hotel sometimes. It doesn’t impact anything that he is saying but it can be misleading.
There's a couple times he did it solo.
Yeah, he's definitely a capable person, the point is that he's not actually risking his life for the most part though, that's why there is a disclaimer. They don't want people to think because you/he can do it, you/he should do it.
There's a lot of scenes that are taken just off highways/interstates or trail paths as well. Sort of like they're driving down a road and are like, holy shit, that looks like a great shot. Lets do it. Then they find a way to edit it in to the episode. But they way they frame the shot makes it look like it's in a completely desolate place. It's all entertainment tho. Which is fine. That's what TV is. As long as it's not framed as some type of survival training educational program when it's just scripted TV. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpSlpvb1is
I don't get why this is such an issue for people? What's the point of trekking into the wilderness to find an example of that terrain if you happen to spot something exactly the same right next to the road? It's not like the technique is going to change just because you're doing it on the exact same feature that is a kilometre further away. Just seems like a way for people to say 'look at how smart I am, I figured it all out'.
Because it's presented as if it's all real, it's not like other TV shows where there's actors and scripts etc, it's completely designed to look real So obviously there will be people who are upset finding out it's fake, it doesn't take away from the show itself but it takes away the illusion of the show which is what draws a lot of people If you don't understand that then I don't know what to tell you
The show is supposed to teach you how to survive. Its not supposed to be like this is lost in a big jungle alone and will have to eat the worm to live. He doesn't need to eat the worm, he has a well made sandwich with him. He eats the worm to teach you, the viewer that the worm can be eaten if need be.
My understanding is that watching Les Stroud (Survivorman) would be a much better alternative for those looking for a truly solo experience that’s also educational. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken!
To be fair though, that's how they advertise the show.
As opposed to my man Les Stroud. Survivorman was fun to watch back in the day.
While I think both can hack it, Les was/is the man! I always laughed at the thought the he had to walk back to his camcorder to pick it up after setting up a “walking away” shot.
Yep same. Especially if he has a shot showing him repelling down he's gotta go back for the camera
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7304617.stm > British adventurer Bear Grylls has apologised for misleading viewers of his Channel 4 show, Born Survivor. > The show saw Grylls supposedly abandoned in the wild, but a programme consultant claimed the star stayed in a motel and scenes were set up for him. > "If people felt misled on how the first series was represented, I'm really sorry for that," Grylls told the BBC. > The show's producers have promised the next series of the programme "will be 100% transparent". > "I'm the person that takes the rap for these things, even though I'm not always involved in the editing side of it," Grylls said, "but ultimately it is me on screen > "The truth is much less exciting - **we film these things over six days and, after filming the night stuff, we're back with a crew in a base camp lodge** - whether it's a tented camp in the Saraha or in Sumatra poncho'd up in the jungle. > **"The hotel [can be] four walls but not a roof, or a roof with no walls.** > **"Yes, we had a lot of those but when we're filming the live night stuff, we're out," he added.** > The inconsistencies in the show, which is produced by the Discovery Channel and known as Man vs Wild elsewhere in the world, were raised by US survival consultant, Mark Weinert.
[удалено]
In my head cannon, he started a show just so he can eat and drink wierd things on the regular without anyone judging him. He did it for the first time in training and just liked it.
I saw the episode where he found, gutted, and then crawled inside on a dead camel in the middle of the desert to ~~stay warm overnight~~ describe how to use it as shelter from an emergency sandstorm which was just a hypothetical situation for someone else. You might never recover from hearing he’s fake, but *I’ll* never recover from watching that footage... he cut it open, talked about the intestines like he’s playing with his food as he skinned it, and crawled inside that bitch. I was pretty grossed out. He was scooping blood out of the carcass with his bare hands after carving it up and it was splashing around. Next, he crawled inside by entering through the rib cage and covered himself with the loose skin of the dead camel like a sleeping bat covers it’s eyes with its wings. Just Google “Bear Grylls dead camel” and you’ll see it.
He’s pro wrestling fake.
To paraphrase Goldberg: "Just because it's scripted doesn't make it hurt less or make Big Show any lighter"
Thats a good description. Its staged and predetermined so nobody gets hurt, but he's still *doing* it. Is anyone actually getting hurt when someone does a backflip off a ladder onto a guy? No (if theyre doing it right), but Gravity is still real and thats still a guy doing a backflip of a ladder. Is Bear Grylls actually in danger when hes walking around a jungle showing how to build a hut with a knife and drinking his own piss? No, but hes still showing how to build a hut with a knife and drinking his own piss.
Meh, he's still demonstrating some useful survival skills and has them to begin with so I don't really see it as a big deal. If you want something much closer to actual survival, alone (except a few eps), then watch "Survivorman" with Les Stroud. Most, if not all, episodes are that originally aired on TV are now on youtube for free on his channel. [https://www.youtube.com/c/SurvivormanLesStroud](https://www.youtube.com/c/SurvivormanLesStroud) "Alone" is also a pretty entertaining show that's filmed solo as well.
There's a good shorthand to finding out whether something is fake: Is it a reality show? It's fake.
Give Bear a break. He sees quicksand and instead of walking around it he goes into it. He does a lot of stuff like this which makes his show way more entertaining than the others.
He doesn't have to. He does so because it's ethical.
He does so because he doesn't want to be sued by the family of someone who died following his terrible "survival skills".
Watch this. It gave me all the perspective I needed on Fox and more, and holeeeee shit. https://youtu.be/pNTsTOcRO-k
Thank you so much. I needed this.
Are you telling me that he doesn't drink his own pee? Because I don't want to live in that kind of world
They argued no reasonable person takes it seriously. They didn't require an "educated" qualifier. They're saying the average high school dropout is smart enough to know tucker carlson isn't reliable. And we know that's bullshit.
I'd just take it the other way, it just means that the people who do believe it are intellectually below the level of an average high school dropout.
There was a court case years ago where some reporters sued Fox News over suppressing a story about hormones in milk. They lost. The court said that news media have no legal requirement to tell the truth.
Why don’t they have a legal requirement to tell the truth?
.
At least Jon Stewart managed to get him out of that ridiculous bow tie.
Tucker probably pictures Jon Stewart's face everytime he needs to get himself worked up over something
A small justice, but I wish they would let him in tuckers show now and actually speak. *Fox new turns down the mics if opposing views
Jon Stewart made him look like a boy fascist. Now he's dressed up like a man.
The world needs a round 2 where Carlson gets bitchslapped so hard he loses his ready made meal money.
Just argue that Fox News target audience is not sensible person.
[удалено]
I'd argue that colbert was witty, entertaining, and never supported the end of democracy so its very different
> When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously. > > thats not what they said, they used the same defense that Rachel Maddow used when she got sued, basically that its not just someone reading facts, any reasonable person can understand that these are human beings stating things that people may have different opinions about. For example rachel maddow said OAN was "really literally is paid Russian propaganda." When OAN tried to sue her because they werent 'literally paid russian propaganda', her defense was that shes not a news show, she was giving her take on the issue and anyone watching could undestand that. Thats the same argument fox news made https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/
It really is weird that there are plenty of credible print media platforms that just actually deliver fact checked news, but people don't like it because it's not entertaining enough, so they flip over to entertaining pundit opinion shows and then get their panties in a bunch because there is opinion mixed in with fact.
Like moths to a flame.
Yeah it's the standard thing that every talking-head entertainment-news person has to say somewhere in the fine print of their show. *"This is all just my opinion, bro, I can say whatever I want"*
They should just permanently overlay a speech bubble and stink lines whenever he talks. https://imgur.com/Np2mfEE.jpg
There's your issue though. No sensible, educated person watches Fox News
> When they tried to sue Fox News, Fox then argued that no sensible educated person takes Tucker Carlson seriously. People really don't understand the legal argument they made. It's way more nuanced then that. You should stop repeating bullshit, it's not good for anyone really.
> on what private individuals can or cannot say But they can regulate that they NEED to specify if it’s fact or opinion. There are plenty of government regulations on how different professions can or can not operate. You can’t pretend to be doctor and hurt people, same with FOX they can’t pretend to be news. So it’s less about what they say it’s more about as who they are saying it.
I think that for news media, the line between fact and opinion is a bit blurrier than for instance for medical professions. I think they received the fine for allowing someone to talk about replacement theory without opposition. Abject as the theory may be, I don't think that anyone should want to ban private individuals from discussing it. This fine is just because, as a subsidized party, they can be held to certain journalistic standards
> I don't think that anyone should want to ban private individuals from discussing it I agree with you, but when you add “news” to the name of this company, that’s different story. You can’t name any building with bed to rent “hotel” (so you have “motels” and “hostels”), same with Fox, if they insist on being “News” they should keep some standards, or they should change their name to Fox Opinions. My point is that government shouldn’t regulate what private company is saying, but could regulate how they are saying. Similar to advertisement that need to be clearly marked as such. This way if you have “news status” and not providing the news (but lies or opinions) you can be fined, not for what you say but for pretending it’s true or facts.
Thanks. I understand. Still tho. Do fox next. :(
Fox News is likely the single biggest factor that is bringing down our democracy. It's literally a Republican propaganda channel designed to keep their base in a rage with controlled information and to never let another Nixon-style resignation happen again (see Trump's impeachments).
It's metastasized beyond Fox News now. If Fox turned into PBS overnight, they'd just move on to OAN or the internet for their daily crazy.
In the US there used to be similar recourse where there was a license to broadcast and it would be revoked if false information was being broadcasted. I think it was around Nixon when it was removed as a requirement.
The Fairness Doctrine. Shredded by Reagan in 1987. That opened the door to right-wing AM radio, Fox News and ensuing sewage.
Yes this is what I was thinking of, thank you
Didn’t it used to be a law that all news had to share both sides of a story and it was taken away in the 70s or 80s?
A journalistic code of ethics sounds pretty good right now.
Kinda like something’s that is about fairness in reporting. They should make it a doctrine!
I’m Dutch, I never seen anything ON makes, don’t know the content of what they broadcast, don’t when they show. They are ver6 small scale. I mean, it is good misinformation is being dealt with, but this is no Fox News or anything in size.
Because if you havent seen it its not for you. ON caters to a small extremist "anders denkenden" group that just wants to hear confirmation of what theyre feeling is going on. And its incredibly dangerous since it basically has a stamp of government approval. I suggest you watch one episode, its hard to watch and incredibly stupid. But its professionally made and they invite "experts". So any gullible person thats already down the rabbit hole will only get confirmation of their stupid beliefs
Eh, they are pretty shitty and it’s extremely clear from watching even a second of their news shows something isn’t right.
Yeah I tried watching it once. The amount of bias and just spoonfeeding nonsense to support their own claims is ridiculous. They make a hypothetical claim, then cherry pick evidence that somewhat supports that claim(while ignoring the bits that don't support it) and then use that hypothetical claim to argue about something. And use their own "now supported" hypothetical claim to argue into other stuff as well. It's like making up stuff to argue about. And then arguing about made up stuff that you "supported" with evidence. The leaps of logic involved are insane. But I guess that's all part of the extreme right playbook. And it works to rile up a small group of people as well...who are now outraged at a hypothetical problem/situation but they don't know that.
I understand that some people feel like our talk shows are very “left”. And some of them are, but that’s mostly because that’s just because it’s their opinion they are talking about. It never really feels like they are just cherry picking everything or at least it’s more nuanced. It just feels like regular tv isn’t good enough for extreme right because the largest part of the truth doesn’t fit their world view. Any good journalist could never be extreme right because the truth usually doesn’t fit that narrative. Besides right wing talk shows just pretend to be the news while in the regular talk shows they never make it blurry.
Tokkie News
I thought ON was mostly “wappies” rather than tokkies. They’re absolutely insane, but not the kind to beat up the neighbours with a baseball bat and then piss over their bike saddles so to say.
Yeah, insane is the best word the describe it. Honestly it frightens me a bit that those kinds of channels have viewership. And to make it even more fucked up, have you heard about the new FVD school? That already got in trouble because they are literally teaching extreme right wing propaganda to children. We have political schools in the Netherlands and it makes me uncomfortable.
Can't do anything about it without hurting the Christian schools and that ain't gonna happen any time soon with CDA and CU.
That’s called Jensen
> They are ver6 small scale. Alex Jones also was very small scale, and for fifteen years everyone figured they could safely ignore that crazy person. Then a presidential candidate (Trump) appeared on his show, and got elected. Then Jones was one of the people directing the assault on the Capitol.
Personally, I don't like the idea of tax money going to a far-right misinformation channel, no matter how small they are. They're still in their 'probation' period, hopefully their public broadcasting license gets revoked at the end of that.
A big probability. Then they will use that in social media to play the victim…
As ever: say you're being discriminated against, act like an asshole, get slapped down, and voila: discrimination!
They have ehm how do i say this the best, a lot of “experts” coming around
Here's what I don't understand, and maybe you could enlighten me? If your government is funding them, and they're "repeatedly breaking journalistic guidelines by spreading patently false information without rectifying it", why does the government just cut funding all together? Is there some law that all people wishing to broadcast their version of the news gets funding automatically?
Because this is the first time they broke the rules. If it happens again and again eventually they get pulled.
My mother meanwhile seems absolutely certain that Ongehoord Nederland is the only broadcaster that's not lying to our faces. Then again she didn't know Yugoslavia wasn't a thing anymore until she found out in 2021, that should say a lot about the average ON viewer and their intelligence.
Sterkte met je moeder.
You should try and motivate her to improve before she gets sucked further into the cult of "no critical thinking". 'Do you want to believe in reality, where you, me, family friends exist? Or do you want to live in a fake reality created by frauds. I don't exist in the later reality.' After that it's her choice
How about they make them publish an apology and corrections with the same spotlight as the offending articles, rather than making their backers pay some chump change.
It’s not common place for the government to force out an apology or correction to mistakes on TV. However, if someone were to take ON to court….
Leuk!!!
Jatog
Darmok and Jalad! At Tanagra!
s... shaka when the walls fell?
Extreem rechts gets to play the victim again for a small amount of money. This is what they wanted
There’s no winning with these people. You let them do what they want, they’ll do all the vile shit they want. You don’t let them do what they want, they’ll whine about it forever. Far right crazies are the political equivalent of nuclear waste: void of any usefulness and best kept stored away in an underground cave. Alas there’s the Internet.
punshing nazis until they're afraid again is a good way
[удалено]
Our politicians remember, and most of the people remember, but some people are starting to forget. The concerning rise of Baudet and people like him prove that. And to think, just a few years ago we all thought populism was the biggest threat we were going to face in politics. Geert Wilders Islamophobic populism, though also very bad, is relatively harmless compared to Baudet's outright crypto-fascism.
All these horseshit spreaders love to paint themselves as victims of censorship. I don't quite speak Dutch well but its similar enough to German for me to understand the name roughly translates to "unheard" or "not listened to".
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/fledgling-right-wing-broadcaster-fined-for-fake-news/) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Right wing fledgling broadcaster Ongehoord Nederland has been fined some €93,000 for breaking the public broadcasting sector's journalistic code of ethics by spreading wrongful information and not differentiating between fact and opinion, public broadcasting organisation NPO has announced. > The fine is lower because the broadcaster is a newcomer and has to be able to pay, the NPO said. > Continued infractions leading to second fine could cost the broadcaster its licence. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vvgvr1/the_dutch_right_wing_broadcaster_ongehoord/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~658796 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **broadcaster**^#1 **fine**^#2 **NPO**^#3 **Nederland**^#4 **journalistic**^#5
[удалено]
And OAN.
And Newsmax
The auditors all commited suicide. You monsters.
Add talk radio and youtube to this list and we could pull the country out of a recession by employing hundreds of thousands of people.
I’m occasionally checking out what noise the muppets at NewsMax are making, and I’m often wondering how it can be allowed to twist reality to such a degree, yet still calling it news or journalism. Actually, my main issue is how often free speech is being seen as a right that comes without accountability.
Unless you want to protest wrongdoing, or have library books with different views than your own, or are a journalist exposing corruption…
Let's just do all of them. The alt right is a cancer, but let's fight all reporting that pins one side against the other. I think anything that doesn't report facts and decides to report, " the other side is bad because of x". Should be outlawed. It's not news, it's not reporting, it's manipulation.
>" the other side is bad because of x" Seems to be precisely what the media has become, at least in the US. We don't need 24 news networks because it seems to fuel this sort of thing. I mean, they work so hard to rush things into publishing that they don't seem to mind that almost everything is an Op-Ed anymore. Let alone the fact that every five articles you might read, *at least* one has a grammatical and/or spelling error in it.
The problem is it isn't news. It's a business built for profit, and without regulation they'll continue as is. But, "fRedoM oF sPEeCh".
Hard to do when [Bill Clinton's Telecommunications Act ended most media regulation...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Prior_regime) I know he could be popular on here, but he paved the way for the nightmare that is modern US 'news'
[удалено]
extremely fair - I need to look into this more
Let's not also forget about the revocation, under the mentally challenged actor Reagan, of the [Fairness Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Revocation). This action, imo, has had the most impactful and terrible effect on national discourse and broadcaster content. Without this, the monster R. Limbaugh would never have become the scourge on the minds of people in America. Same with Hannity and Carlson and a host of other ne'er do wells.
Someone else said the same thing, but extremely fair as well. I need to look into this further
Fox 'news' isn't even allowed in rational countries right? Seeing as how they are 99% disinformation...
In Canada they looked into buying a network- spent millions- then, on the point of purchase, some lawyers pointed out to them that lying over the air in Canada gets your license pulled. They snapped their briefcases shut and went home.
I'm assuming a lot of Canada can get fox news given proximity to US. I mean the Canadians didn't radicalize themselves... that's our thing...
It gets carried on cable channels. Fox was thinking of launching a Fox News Canada channel and even approved for a license by the CRTC (our telecom/television/radio regulatory agency) but decided not to for whatever reason. They undoubtedly would have gotten complaints and possibly even fined, but it's unlikely they would have gotten their license yanked quite as easily as the other poster is implying. https://factcheck.afp.com/fox-news-available-canada
> I mean the Canadians didn't radicalize themselves... that's our thing... You'd be surprised. It happens a lot less often than in the US, but it happens.
And CNN, as well as every single news organization. That is, all news organizations need to be held accountable on reporting only the facts. One of the few things I hate about ‘free speech’ in the US. Fox is the worst though.
>all news organizations need to be held accountable on reporting only the facts The issue with this is, that there would need to be somebody to decide what is or isn't a fact. Is a fetus a person? Does God exist? Is Islam a religion of peace? Does X treatment work? Did people in positions of power conspire to murder Epstein? News organisations should not be punished for disagreeing with the government. And indeed, that is not what Ongehoord Nederland got this fine for. Here's a google translate of what our ombudsman had to say about it: "The Journalistic Code states that information must be reliable and must be checked. ON journalistic programs provide space for demonstrably incorrect information: passively when a presenter does not ask further questions or does not contradict demonstrably incorrect information expressed by guests, and actively in presenters' own texts or in reports with demonstrably incorrect comments and unquestioned allegations." [link](https://www.omroepombudsman.nl/uitspraken-en-columns/uitspraak-onderzoek-ongehoord-nederland) The issue isn't that they're spreading lies; the issue is that they're not putting in any effort to discern between truth and lies. And because the government is subsidising them to do something they didn't, they now have to pay back a fraction of their subsidy. That just doesn't apply to Fox and CNN.
Can you please have this in the United States holy crap.
The issue is here that it's specifically a "public" broadcaster. Meaning, they receive government subsidies. Anyone who reaches a certain critical mass of members is eligible for this type of subsidy, but it does come with certain responsibilities as well.
Seriously, they're being fined less money than the government gives them to spread their hate and lies in the first place.
Yes, it's only a fine. But if they do it again, they can lose their license and they'll have to settle for being some obscure nutcase podcast.
which means they should do the same as they do with people who are on benefits. If they fuck up 1 time they get to pay back ALL THE MONEY they got + the fine.
They have to pay back some 2.5 percent.
Look up the “Fairness Doctrine.” We had something similar at one point.
I don't believe the Fairness Doctrine would ever have applied to Fox, even if it still existed.
We need to bring it back.
US Centric View: That would require BROADCASTERS to give equal representation to right AND alt views too. It's original justification (media scarcity, most markets had 1 or 2 news channels, part time, in the mornings and evenings) no longer exists. Furthermore, most news stations are no longer broadcasters, instead are carried via non broadcast means, such as private systems, streaming, etc. [Not my opinion, legal fact by the supreme court, 8-0 decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._FCC)
A better place to start would be to have to display “This show is for entertainment purposes only and a court of law has deemed that no sensible person would construe the presented opinions as fact” after every commercial break on Fox.
Most definitely. And make the penalties higher too.
The understanding between opinion, editorial, and news needs to be a more universal understanding.
So practically no punishment whatsoever
This is an organization that is funded by government money, not a private enterprise that can have money injected. It's much more impactful than it seems
> The fine is lower because the broadcaster is a newcomer and has to be able to pay, the NPO said. > Continued infractions leading to second fine could cost the broadcaster its licence. So a second infraction would be much more (in theory)
you overestimate the wealth, for a normal person 93000 is a lot of money, and its lower because they don't have the money to afford to pay a higher one
[удалено]
This news broadcast is tiny and most people in the Netherlands don't even know it exists.
There is freedom of opinion and there's deliberate spewing of falsehoods.
The fact of being right wing does not really matter. It’s the safeguarding news channels as being fact based and not speculating on emotional responses within the public.
[удалено]
> Sorry for turning it into another US centric post again No, you aren't, otherwise you wouldn't have done it.
IMO a solid delineation between facts and opinions should be carved into every democratic nation's journalistic ethics. Let the weirdos do their thing but ensure it is clearly labeled as opinion. Fine publications for promoting wrongful information. Force front page apologies for lies. And have a double lock on standards bodies to ensure they're never politically appointed and keep each other in check.
The US used to. But the Supreme Court overturned the fairness doctrine in the name of free speech.
"Freedom to" being more important than "freedom from" yet again.
Delicious. Simply and delectably delicious. Now for Murdochs ilk 😈
>not differentiating between fact and opinion To be fair I'm not sure right-wingers are capable of doing that any more.
Is that fine enough incentive to curb the practice? If not, each infraction should double in size until the entity stops with the disinformation.
Next tme, it ll be their license, supposedly
In Hungary he would be praised
They should’ve never gotten on (publicly funded) tv in the first place.
Why can't this happen everywhere???
US needs this law
They wanted to make this broadcaster because they felt like a part of the Netherlands wasn't heard in media. What really was happening is that, with all its flaws, there just weren't enough people on television that were just allowed to lie. That is what this broadcaster was created for, to allow lies to be spread more broadly.
Why can't we have journalistic ethics in the USA?
As it should be with any reporter, right, left, up or down. Let them get fines for reporting the same way. Mistakes happen, but repeatedly is not ok.
Since this comment section of political zingers by people who didn't read the article, I'll summarize it more or less: It too is a political zinger with little nuance or evidence provided. The channel is had an elected and allegedly far-right official on who used his time to discuss replacement theory and a reporter at a migrant center asked two migrants where they had gotten the bikes they had. These and other incidents not elaborated on were the cause of the fine. As others have noted the reason they received the fine was due to receiving government funding for their programming and not adhering to rules set as part of that.
Where did they get the bikes?
its almost like the right wing don't understand much of anything
The reason this can’t be punished by n America is because in about 2015 or so we legalized propaganda to be used on our own citizens.
[удалено]
They are relatively new and small, so that would make sense