When does Media using the word "news" constitute false advertising?

[donttread]

Some woman in red glasses is on CNN blasting trump over PR and storm Maria from a year ago with the words "Breaking News" below her video. She went from Trump bashing to interviewing a congressman about the current storm in Carolina. He is republican and just said the federal response has been excellent. That'll piss her off! LOL
Regardless we had an opinion piece running with the words "Breaking news" on the screen she then jumped into a real breaking news story.
The inference? Her opinion is news.
No doubt Fox does similar stuff. I know almost no one is held to truth in advertising anymore but this $#@! should be.
Remember "Not Necessarily the News"? Well those words should have been flashing as this woman spoke. When did Americans start needing their opinion force fed to them by talking heads? Did Rush start this or does it go back further? There have always been opinions available in media but now they appear to "Trump" ( yeah pun intended) actual news! Where does the person who wants the facts without the reporters views go so he or she can ( God no!!) make up their own minds supposed to turn?
I'm pretty sure my parents watched the news and then formed their own actual individual opinions. The goal of this piece and many others was to sell toxic opinion as fact or news. The polarization process is being assisted by the media to a great extent
Not only that but the PR governor just stated that their government operates on science and fact. And there is no place for that kind of thing in America politics! Apparently this angry woman and Trump disagree about the death toll from Maria a year ago. Therefore he is a liar.

[donttread]

Some woman in red glasses is on CNN blasting trump over PR and storm Maria from a year ago with the words "Breaking News" below her video. She went from Trump bashing to interviewing a congressman about the current storm in Carolina. He is republican and just said the federal response has been excellent. That'll piss her off! LOL
Regardless we had an opinion piece running with the words "Breaking news" on the screen she then jumped into a real breaking news story.
The inference? Her opinion is news.
No doubt Fox does similar stuff. I know almost no one is held to truth in advertising anymore but this $#@! should be.
Remember "Not Necessarily the News"? Well those words should have been flashing as this woman spoke. When did Americans start needing their opinion force fed to them by talking heads? Did Rush start this or does it go back further? There have always been opinions available in media but now they appear to "Trump" ( yeah pun intended) actual news! Where does the person who wants the facts without the reporters views go so he or she can ( God no!!) make up their own minds supposed to turn?
I'm pretty sure my parents watched the news and then formed their own actual individual opinions. The goal of this piece and many others was to sell toxic opinion as fact or news. The polarization process is being assisted by the media to a great extent
Not only that but the PR governor just stated that their government operates on science and fact. And there is no place for that kind of thing in America politics! Apparently this angry woman and Trump disagree about the death toll from Maria a year ago. Therefore he is a liar.

Now she is war hawking about sticking our noses further into Syria's BS. Incredible. She is interviewing some Kingsinger who thinks that congress is " a little gun shy after the past 15-17 years".
No $#@! Sherlock.

Then I believe he refer to Assad as the "Butcher of Baghdad" .

This stuff is way beyond useless!

[Mister D]

donttread, this is what "news" always was. Granted, there may have been more decorum and less stupidityin the past but the "news" was NEVER meant to simply inform.

[Ethereal]

I read no newspaper now but Ritchie’s, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
--Thomas Jefferson

[Mister D]

lol great quote. Two great quotes tonight.

[Don]

During his time as U.S. minister to France, Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to a statesman from Virginia, waxing poetic about the importance of a free press.
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right,” Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington in 1787. “And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

Those words would help identify the Founding Father as a champion of the press.
But as Jefferson was writing them, scholars say, he did not foresee that newspapers would become a partisan tool for warring political factions in a climate of unrest and uncertainty over the fate of a nascent nation.

[donttread]

donttread, this is what "news" always was. Granted, there may have been more decorum and less stupidityin the past but the "news" was NEVER meant to simply inform.

Humm. I get what you are saying. Even Rather and Walter C. had their slants. OK. But they were at such a different level as to make today's News fundamentally different. There was nothing like this 40 years ago

[donttread]

How could he have foreseen this? This is not news and is apparently entertainment to some, but sickening to others. This process is helping to dumb down America. People listen to the channel that supports their "side" , are then polarized even more and accept fiction and slant as fact.

[Mister D]

Humm. I get what you are saying. Even Rather and Walter C. had their slants. OK. But they were at such a different level as to make today's News fundamentally different. There was nothing like this 40 years ago

There was no fundamental difference. News is propaganda and I don't mean that in the usual way you are used to. I mean it in the strict sense that the world is interpreted for consumers of news.

[Ethereal]

Humm. I get what you are saying. Even Rather and Walter C. had their slants. OK. But they were at such a different level as to make today's News fundamentally different. There was nothing like this 40 years ago

50 and 40 years ago, the national and international news outlets in America were so homogeneous and unified in their promotion of establishment narratives that there was no need for anchors to express opinions that were favorable to the establishment's agenda. It was implied in what they reported, how they reported it, and, just as importantly, what they didn't report.