Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

  1. The law is that the corrections must be in the same position and the same prominence as the original article. But it takes a lengthy court procedure to prove the original article was untrue.
    13
  2. I think you're lying. No-one could be as foolish as to believe what you have just written.
    4
  3.  @anglonorse2943  "Misinformation" is quite often open to interpretation. Very few things are as black and white as simple minds suppose. What to you is a lie may well be simply an opinion you disagree with. Calling the cops in on discourse is a terrifying prospect, quite frankly.
    2
  4.  @DW-indeed  You'd be right! Which rather proves the point.
    1
  5. And they're financing the Ukraine war. Starmer had dinner with their Chief Exec a couple of nights ago, I believe.
    1
  6.  @PortilloMoment  And where do we find the "independent assessors". Labour politicians out of a job? University chancellors with axes to grind - journalists, heaven forbid! The current system is self regulatory in that slander and defamation are heavily punished in law, and even then hard to prove. It would be even more difficult and really not at all sensible to extend the process to political opinion, or even in any other field for that matter.
    1
  7.  @Ooze-cl5tx  Actually Johnson is quite a good journalist. Just a crappy politician and a bit of a psychopath. I'm still very much against your idea, I'm afraid. Journalism in this country, for all its many, many faults would become even worse if subjected to the diktats of a body of worthies, whatever their origin. People just have to learn to take everything they hear and read with a huge pinch of salt - and I believe they already do.
    1
  8.  @Ooze-cl5tx  Somewhat excessive! And boring.
    1
  9.  @PortilloMoment  This is a nightmare scenario. Only journalists truly understand journalism, and the prospect of a panel of the great and the good passing judgement on their outpourings sends shivers down my spine. All that is needed is for everyone to treat journalism with healthy cynicism - which actually I think a great many people already do.
    1
  10.  @MijinLaw  Not impossible, but very very difficult. It is also a lengthy process, and one fraught with danger. I agree with your second statement. But then - so what? As long as you are sensible enough to accept that all these explanations are possible, it doesn't much matter which one happens to be correct.
    1
  11. You shouldn't worry about this. Allow people to discriminate for themselves. Giving the Government the mandate to decide what is true and what is not is opening the grim pathway to totalitarianism. Which would be a lot, lot worse than having to put up with nonsense from journalists.
    1
  12.  @weswheel4834  Not if opposing views can be put, and in the modern world they usually can be. Restricting freedom of thought and opinion may well prevent some lies reaching the public ear, but the process will inevitably lead to many truths falling by the wayside too.
    1
  13.  @howtoappearincompletely9739  More fool you then.
    1
  14.  @weswheel4834  It's not a question of what's true and what isn't. What's true for one person isn't true to another. Asserting the existence of God is untrue to an atheist. Would an atheist government then persecute all Christians and Muslims? Allowing governments to decide on the truth would mean having an entirely unbiased government, and no such thing exists and never will. The same thing applies to courts.
    1
  15.  @anglonorse2943  I have to disagree. See you in court?
    1
  16.  @DW-indeed  And who decides the rating? And why? All any reasonable human being has to do when dealing with information is to make a choice and stick to it until it can be proved otherwise. It's called having a brain.
    1
  17.  @weswheel4834  I do, as it happens. My answer is that I'm 99% sure it happened, but I entirely respect those who he believe it did or it didn't. Very, very few things have a definitely provable answer, and when it comes to political questions the number of assertions in this category is about as large as the number of assertions made.
    1
  18.  @rbailey6949  Oh God, give me strength!
    1
  19.  @anglonorse2943  Sounds a lot like religion to me!
    1
  20.  @anglonorse2943  It means as much as anyone else's. I don't defend liars, just opinions you disagree with, perhaps. It's a shame you can't seem to tell the difference.
    1
  21.  @anglonorse2943  I'm not a Boy Scout either.
    1
  22.  @anglonorse2943  I wouldn't swear to it.
    1
  23.  @anglonorse2943  Right wing tropes are often unvarnished truths. As in this instance.
    1