Hacker News Reader

If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?

View on HN

No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said.

It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition.

I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.

profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale

Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com