As evidenced by the recent Presidential election, the Russian hacking, the surge of Fake News,  and now the advent of "alternative facts"  disinformation is being spewed wantonly to the severe detriment of our nation. The fact is that with so many lies, fake stories and half truths inundating  Americans, it has become critical to America's survival as a free democratic nation to have a  full time cable "news"  channel which engages solely in fact checking.

The media is ethically bound to make sure what they are reporting is factually true before it is reported.  However, over the years the media has failed to live up to its role as fact checker and it now seems takes a very nonchalant attitude about  lies, made up stories and so called "half- truths." In fact many of the articles you may read which are written by a "staff reporter" are written by a public relations company specializing in writing up news which will bring large audiences to the paper or tv company which are their clients.  These people do not have the ethical responsibility real journalists have but even so, journalists today accept this and use their reports.  I have read that this "invasion" of public relations firms writing up articles for journalists actually began in the 1920 but became full force in the 1950s.....the time when "public relations firms" took over midtown manhattan and were the most coveted places to work.

I myself noticed  the media starting to disregard their own ethical constraints when they began  to report lies and half truths, beginning with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.  For example the news was reporting that "a spokesman from the White House said ..........such and such."  What the person said, "such and such," was a lie but it was true that the spokesman said "such and such."  By reporting what someone said, regardless of the truth of what was said, the Whitehouse and media began to manipulate the reader/listener to think and feel in accordance with the distorted message caused by reporting  the "half truth."

"Half truths" are lies, plain and simple.  A half truth is the purposeful putting forward of statements that are true but out of context and which, if put forth in context would change what the listener/reader would otherwise have understood. That is why a witness is sworn in they swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  The euphemism "half truths" has been around a long time but never received the attention it should have had, as is, thank goodness, the new introduction of news spouting of "alternate facts."  The advent of half truths was also when I believe  public trust of the media spiraled downward.   Accordingly we no longer can count on the media to report only that which it has fact checked.

Another reason for the need of a full time fact checking news station is that the media also fails to report with specificity and precision.   For example it was reported that one out of five women on college campuses report that they have been "sexually attacked."  What the hell does "sexually attacked" mean?  Does that phrase referred only to rape?  Does it include unwanted touching, jokes,  language?    If it means only "rape" the words used for the statistic should be that "one in five women have reported being raped."  But if it  included sexually inappropriate behaviors other than rape, the words "sexually attacked" are misleading and disinformation.

Whether fact checking is ultimately possible has been questioned by some. They argue that fact checkers may themselves need fact checkers, that there can be disputed facts and questioned how half truths should be handled.  These are not valid concerns.   Fact checkers should have footnotes, as do Wikipedia and MoveOn,  and most recently The New York Times, or other ways to reference the source and support for their report.  Having to have references for their "facts" which can be checked by individuals will ensure that the fact checkers stay on the straight and narrow.

Next  there is no such thing as a "disputed" fact or an "alternative fact."  A fact is a fact.  The idea that there can be  "disputed facts" muddies the public understanding of the truth.  A fact is a fact.  It is not an observation, allegation, opinion, guess  or conclusion.  All of those can properly be disputed, but not a fact.

I believe a key reason the  reason the media has relaxed its ethics (besides the corporate takeover of our news media) is that it has to fill  airtime 24/7.  We might call the current genre of reporting as "speed reporting."  The rest is, as Bernie Sanders said, gossip, guess work, scandals and such entertaining stories.  There are better ways to fill up that time.   Because of "speed reporting," fact checkers should not only check the accuracy of a given alleged "fact." They should also investigate and report the reported news stories in depth so that the listener/reader understands the whole truth rather than coming away from a "speed report"  essentially believing disinformation.

Hence the want ad for a full time fact checking cable channel. This "news channel" would not  cover the events of the day. This channel would only cover the news already reported by other news outlets to inform the public as to  the truth or falsity of the news as reported.  Dan Rather has now started a social media page for fact checking.  However, social media is not a large enough platform to report on the numerous lies we are being told daily nor is but one person enough to cover what has become quite a quagmire to delve into.  I urge Dan Rather and other patriots determined to preserve this country's core values, to start a 24/7 fact checking news channel. .  If we do not get this service now, this nation is truly doomed.