MISINFORMATION WARS: WHO FACT-CHECKS THE FACT-CHECKERS?

Filmed at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023.
Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Should a society that respects free speech need to prove that all ideas are true before they are aired? Or does encouraging ill-informed debate risk distorting and damaging the public square? Should we tolerate the threat of ‘disinformation’ to avoid censorship of dissent? Or is there something we can do to promote truth and freedom?
The speakers are:
Liam Deacon - communications and campaigns consultant, Pagefield Communications; former journalist; former head of press, Brexit Party
Andrew Lowenthal - writer and researcher; director, liber-net; co-founder and former executive director, EngageMedia
Florence Read - UnHerd producer; presenter, UnHerd TV
The chair is: Tessa Clarke - journalist; author; documentary reporter; deputy director, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)
This debate was filmed by volunteers working with the charity WORLDwrite. Please help ensure the charity is able to edit a further 30 debates by hitting the THANKS button above and donating whatever you can afford.

Пікірлер: 15

  • @MartinParsons-tr6wi
    @MartinParsons-tr6wi26 күн бұрын

    It says 11 comments ??!!??!!??!! Quod erat demonstrandum

  • @pmberkeley

    @pmberkeley

    21 күн бұрын

    Right?

  • @MarkHarper
    @MarkHarper4 ай бұрын

    Dissapointed no one mentionaed Assange

  • @oisinoc

    @oisinoc

    4 ай бұрын

    I guess there was no Russian diplomats or intelligence assets present

  • @mabit
    @mabit4 ай бұрын

    In the world where I am a dictator this is my law for MSM. 1.Anyone with over 100k regular interactions a month would be classified as MSM. This would put many KZreadrs etc into the MSM bracket as they are the new way to consume information. 2. All published news articles must be locked and all changes highlighted in red. 3. Anything published which was incorrect where a retraction is required must be on the same scale as it was originally published. For example a News Paper prints on its front page with follow ons on page 2, 3, 5, 6 etc. something which is later proven to be untrue must publish their retraction to the same scale. With a retraction and apology on all those pages in the same font and column inches. Even if that is WE WERE WRONG copied and pasted a few hundred times. If it was a 10 min video released then they need to do a 10 min video stating why they were wrong. 4. If this was online it must have the headline changed to Retracted [Headline] and article with a link to the correct article. Outlets like the guardian etc can spew lies for weeks and then do a 3 sentence retraction on a hard to find webpage. Make them show their errors publicly to the same extent. They will only do it once and the embarrassment and loss of trust will be better than any fine or "self regulation". There has to be proper responsibility taken by the media.

  • @willnitschke

    @willnitschke

    4 ай бұрын

    Unfortunately I see a flaw in your cunning plan Baldric. Who decides what's true and what isn't?

  • @antiyttrad

    @antiyttrad

    4 ай бұрын

    This doesnt work, because its not a neautral process at all. Experts are biased

  • @mabit

    @mabit

    4 ай бұрын

    @@willnitschke The fact we are asking what is true is the problem, there is only ever 1 truth. It is the responsibility of journalists and courts to get to the truth. There is no such thing as My Truth, Your Truth . There is only one truth. Media should not be trying to get first to publish anything, they should be looking to be first to publish the truth. But take Trump Russia Collusion that was lies. The covington kids, kyle rittenhouse etc. How much lies went out about those 3 topics alone.