1. Very difficult to implement2. Conflicting studies make it easy to bias what viewers see
@kyrothehero Thanks for being first to respond to my first attempt to raise a debatable issue! Concerning your second point, I think bias currently exists such to an alarming degree that many people watch only websites that confirm what they already think. I envision the fact-checking notices mainly to provide notification that there is reason to regard something as true, false or at least questionable. I also see the process as giving links to source material to explain the notice. Just seeing one of our favorite ideas questioned ought (Hope springs eternal.) to nudge many people to click on the links to see why their idea is in question. How many times can you be struck between the eyes with the knowledge your ideas may be debatable or wrong without at least checking them out? I recently had to face that one of my political heroes was shown to have misled his public by miscueing some information from a report because it made his case look better. I thank fact-checking for that one.As to your first point, yes and no. When I see how pop-up dialog boxes interrupt work on my computer screen these days, in ever-increasing numbers, I doubt that it is an impossible or even improbable task. So, technically, it doesn't appear to me to be a huge implementation problem. The difficulty may arise in getting the media powers-that-be to agree. If that is what you meant, I surely agree with you.
If all news and public service websites were required to include real-time fact-checking, maybe America could finally achieve as close to dependably honest reporting. There would be plenty of leeway for points of view but there would be much less chance for misconstruing facts and outright lies.
I part ways on the idea that it should be required, but I do think it can be very valuable/News reports should already be fact checked by the organization presenting them, so that would be redundant.But for interviews and opinion pieces, it may well have a place since they don't control what those people say. Fact checking itself can be a bit tricky. Often there are many differing accounts of an event, or different sources of statistical information. Fact checking sites usually take time to explain the claims and different ways in which they can be truthful or false. So it's not always just black and white.But some types of information like statistics or very simple fact claims could be quickly verified and compared and included in a program.
I do believe that it would be good to have this (perhaps there is such a thing), but it shouldn't be required. The problem of saying that people "watch only websites that confirm what they already think" is because that is too general. There are many ways the media does deceive, however, there is nothing stopping you from exploring many different news outlets and deciding from there was is fact and what is fiction.But you are right, many people don't put that much effort into finding information. And they will decide to only watch CNN or Fox and what have you. The main issue is, who would run such website or channel? Who would seek out the facts? There is no unbiased person, especially not when hired for such a task. There'd be no way to prove facts to the audience because they'd simply be seeing words that run across the screen with every statement. No matter what, there will be ignorant people, regardless if the media is pushing one view to them or not. But for the most part, I'd say people who are willing to think outside their own opinions already fact check by themselves.
@katamirand Hi, Katamirand! You agree with Sigfried about the requirement. I repeat that requiring it is the only part that makes it work. In fact, in my opinion (and I understand it is an opinion), if a site purports to present the news, putting forth verifiable truth or, at the least stating up front it is speculation based on opinion, ought to be part of a mandate to all news agencies. Let me add that it's a shame we even have to specify that we expect human beings to be honest and truthful. We already have several highly-respected and trustworthy overseers of truth. You seem to imply there's no one. To say "there is no unbiased person" is the most negative view I've heard expressed in quite a while. Perhaps there will always be ignorant people, but including critical thinking in every student's education--and from an early age--would improve that situation in the future. Unfortunately, the trend under this administration is in the opposite direction. You wrote, "I'd say people who are willing to think outside their own opinions already fact check by themselves." Of course that goes without question. However, making it simpler--and more likely for busy people--by including a sidebar or whatever that suggests further research is necessary to verify a point and referring back to a source, would certainly improve that possibility.I'm not looking for perfection, exactly, just improvement.Thanks for your response.