Should American Media be held responsible for reporting false information that hurts our war effort?

There is no such thing as Investigative reporting in America.Any slob can say anything about the U.S. and our military and the media runs with it without one iota of proof.Where is John Wayne when you need him?Should American Media be held responsible for reporting false information that hurts our war effort?
I wish their was responsible reporting, the least they could do is show a disclaimer that all opinions expressed by random interviews are not those of the station, and their validity has not been verified. Most people realize this , but it only takes a few that believe a false statement to start a storm. Also if they actually tried to make it ';fair and balanced'; by showing all sides would be nice, and having followups that checked the accurately of statements made would be great. They go after stories accurate or not that bring in and hold the attention of viewers, can't entirely blame them for that They would go off the air if they didn't. I do think there should be some legal recourse if someone or something is deliberately injured by intentional falsehoods for ratings, but this would be hard to prove, and the damage done may be permanant.Should American Media be held responsible for reporting false information that hurts our war effort?
Yes but it will never happen we are to lazy.
Oh there's still investigative reporting, it's just people like you if they don't like what they hear call it media bias.





The government is usually the first source of misinformation, can we say weapons of mass destruction, al quaeda was part of 9/11?
Held responsible? By whom? Punished? Not in this country.
';Any slob can say anything about the U.S. and our military and the media runs with it without one iota of proof.';





Wow- that sounds like Bush and Fox News!
I'm a journalist so take exception a little bit. There is not a 'media' that does stuff. There is no conspiracy. There are different media outlets, all of which have different standards, and although many try not to (except FOX) they do have a political slant, even if it's a subconscious one. If a journalist runs stories without proof they won't be a journalist for long, all journalists should try to get balance in a story and allow right of reply. I agree that balance is lacking in a lot of media, but it's not necessarily incorrect, just not the whole truth. You might argue 'what's the difference?' but news stories are only so long, the journalist and the sub and the editor need to make a call on what information is vital and what isn't. Sometimes journalists disagree on what needs to be in a story, and that's when the public get angry and confused.