NationStates Jolt Archive


Fair-Apology Act

Pallatium
25-10-2005, 21:54
Noting that the NSUN has supported a Free Press within its jurisdiction,

Noting that sometimes the Press can make mistakes,

Noting also that sometimes the Press can mislead or lie to their readers,

Noting that while such mistakes or lies are generally big stories, any apologies are not,

Commenting on the detremental affect this can have on the people in the stories,

Defining the press as any member of the broadcast, newspaper or magazine media, including any websites that come under their authority,

States that

1) If any member of The Press publishes a story that contains errors, they are required to correct those errors in the same manner the original story was published

2) If any member of The Press publishes a story that they know to be untrue, they are required to correct those errors in the same manner they original story was published

3) These regulations do not preclude the right of citizens to sue under liable, slander or other laws that apply in the given instance,

4) These regulations only apply when the story is about a named person, group or organization. It does not apply in the case of a generalisation ("the members of the UN" for example)



Pros - it makes the press excercise some caution and responsiblity. If they are going to spread lies about a person over five pages, they have to spread the apology over the five pages as well. And if you produce a two hour show about a person and fill it with mistakes and lies (because it makes good viewing, and you didn't research it) you have to spend two hours to apologise for it.

Cons - No one in the press will like it, people will maybe mistake it as an assult on the free press (which it isn't), people will say it costs too much and that the press should be free to print what it wants.


The basic idea is to ensure that if the press is going to write a story saying "Queen Lily cheated on her exams" that takes up the whole front page, they can not put an apology (I didn't, by the way) on the bottom of page five in little letters - they have to use the same space to apologise.

The Press are free to print what they want, about the government, about people and about everything, and they are allowed to express their opinion about things, but they have to check their facts.
Forgottenlands
25-10-2005, 21:56
"Defining The Press as any medium, group or other organization that claims protection under Freedom Of The Press"

House of Cards
Pallatium
25-10-2005, 22:17
"Defining The Press as any medium, group or other organization that claims protection under Freedom Of The Press"

House of Cards

"Defining the press as any member of the broadcast, newspaper or magazine media, including any websites that come under their authority"

I can't say "publishing" cause it includes books (and no one will agree to publishing a whole book as an apology), however broadcast covers tv, radio and so forth, and newspaper and magazine covers "the press". And to avoid them getting away with it by putting it on a website, they have to be included as well.
The Frozen Chosen
26-10-2005, 01:10
I think the issue is that your definition relies upon the Freedom of the Press. If that resoltuion were to be repealed, then your definition wouldn't work; thus you're resolution would become void since no group could seek protection under Freedom of the Press anymore.
Pallatium
26-10-2005, 09:35
I think the issue is that your definition relies upon the Freedom of the Press. If that resoltuion were to be repealed, then your definition wouldn't work; thus you're resolution would become void since no group could seek protection under Freedom of the Press anymore.

I would argue that by not referring directly to Freedom of The Press (the resolution), it doesn't.