If someone writes about things they think will happen, but those things never materialize, they shouldn’t just get to brush it under the rug and act like they never said it. You’ve made millions of people worried over literally nothing. That should come with reputational consequences - not just for the journalist, but also for the platform that amplified their speculation.
Now obviously, there are things worth writing about even when many unknowns remain. But in those cases, acknowledge the uncertainty - lay out the improbable worst-case scenario, the more likely outcome, and the possibility that the whole issue might just fade away. Just don’t present speculation as certainty when you can’t possibly know, or if you do then own it.
Assuming you mean laws (which is what you seem to be insinuating without daring to say it), this is an absolutely terrible take.
Laws to make journalism “accountable” are at the top of every authoritarian government’s wishlist. In Russia, you get 15 years for publishing “knowingly false information” about the armed forces (where the meaning of “false” is decided by the prosecutor). Since Trump debased this concept of “fake news”, authoritarian regimes around the world have used it as a pretext for new laws.
In China, meanwhile, journalists are not even allowed to “undermine national harmony” and similar nebulous ideals. Even in Britain, the libel laws are so tough that it can be very expensive to make even a small mistake when talking about individual rich people. The Trump administration is pushing for a British-style libel laws in the US.
The end result of making journalism “accountable” is to shut up all opposition to power. That is a very dangerous road to go down.
No, I’m not talking about a law. If I did I would’ve said so.
Your argument seems a bit redundant then. Journalists and news platforms are already “held accountable” when they get things wrong: their reputations suffer.