Free press is already subject to reasonable limitations. As an example, they can be sued for libel under a number of circumstances.
No freedom, including freedom of the press, exists in a vacuum. All freedoms have to be reconciled with competing rights, freedoms and obligations that have constitutional stature. The right to free and fair elections is indisputably at that level. Requiring media to justify selective reliance on certain polls to the exclusion of other published polls is a reasonable constraint on freedom of the press.
Please don't try to sidestep the issue: Who would certify your politically correct polls and how? All that others stuff you mentioned is stuff we use daily to distinguish truth from fictions. Now you're saying a free press isn't up to the task and 'the media (defined how and by whom) should be required (how and by whom) to publish all the polls, or justify their choice (how and to whom) of those they rely on (who defines 'rely on', how). Oh yeah, first off: What's a poll? What or who determines all the polls someone isn't relying on?
I certainly wouldn't agree with your statement that anything like you've proposed is a reasonable constraint on freedom of the press. Nor has any democratic government I'm aware of. We don't even require the press to publish results or lists of candidates. Elections Canada has to buy the ad space.
The Don would be unlikely to agree; it would constrain him and his adherents from publishing crap polls like the ones I've been complaining about here, this thread being a prime example of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of polls.
Anyone with brains already requires" …media to justify selective reliance on certain polls to the exclusion of other published polls", it's why we've all become aware of phrasing like "…accurate to ±3%, nineteen times out of twenty". That sort of standard qualification has been entirely absent from poll-talk everywhere, except in what I imagine Trumpians would consider mainstream media.
If that constraint of yours is reasonable, I'm sure you'll readily be able to sketch out a simple model of how requiring media to hold to it could work in practice. I look forward to it. If you choose not to respond, so be it, that's always been how we reconcile competing views, by choosing to speak up with ours. Or not.
