I.M.A.!

Our news media needs a protection agency, much like our food industry does.

Today, there is the FDA, which regulates food products and keeps them safe. But there was once a time in our nation's history when food products were frequently unsafe. People were poisoned with impure products or spoilage. Unscrupulous people would try to maximize their profit by cutting flour with sawdust or other similarly gruesome tricks. Meat products especially were prone to contaminants and spoilage. People sometimes got sick from what they ate.

All that changed in 1906 when President Teddy Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drugs act into law. The agency that resulted from that piece of legislation is known today as the FDA.

As a result, federal regulations safeguard what we eat. If we (for example) look at a can of soup, we see on the label a list of ingredients. It is against the law to put any ingredients into that can which are not listed upon that label. Why? Because the FDA understands that if someone unknowingly eats something that isn't listed there, that person could get seriously sick.

We need a similar law for our news media consumption, and for precisely the same reason!

A federal agency can monitor news sites and help ensure that what is being disseminated is actually news which is free of bias. We could call this new agency "IMA," for "Information Media Administration."

Let the jokes begin. "IMA good news outlet!" "IMA bad news outlet!" "IMA hater of this new over-bloated government bureaucracy," etc., etc.

Essentially, this means a return of the Fairness Doctrine, in which any controversial topic must present both sides of the argument with equal time. It would also make sure that propaganda is not disguised as news, and relegate opinion shows to some other outlet.

What happens if a news media violates these standards? Why, they have the title of "news" removed! Fox "News" would have to change its name to "Fox Infotainment," or some such.

Notice how this does NOT impinge anyone's freedom of speech! Those outlets which have the label of "news" stripped from them can go on saying whatever stupid nonsense they want. They just can't do so with quite the veneer of authenticity. 

The Institutionalized Disinformation (you know, that thing I so often rail about in blog post after blog post?) is actually diminished!

There is a certain amount of "laissez faire" involved, here. The FDA cannot prevent consumers from making bad choices regarding what they eat. And so they are free to consume all the poly-saturated fat, cholesterol, and high-fructose corn syrup they want. But it is generally understood that such food is "junk food." In like manner, IMA will not be able to prevent people from consuming crap such as Sean Hannity, Greg Gutfeld, The Five, or Joe Rogan. But anything re-quoted from these sources can at least be countered with the truthful statement, "Oh, but that's not news." Which would be true! It's junk news!

And I wish Rachel Maddow all the success in the world - on Max, or MTV. But her particular brand of editorializing doesn't belong on a news network any more than Laura Ingram's does.

That's how fairness and balance gets restored in the legacy media.

In my next blog post, I'll discuss how to restore fairness and balance in social media!

Eric

**