How do we fix media and information?

[doodle]

Disagreement over basic facts and the truth is undermining our democracy. How can we have reasonable debates over differences of opinion when the underlying reality of what is true from which we build our opinions is so disputed? The rise of internet media has led to even more spreading of misinformation and outright lies. What are some possible solutions? How can we address this?

[glennds]

Disagreement over basic facts and the truth is undermining our democracy. How can we have reasonable debates over differences of opinion when the underlying reality of what is true from which we build our opinions is so disputed? The rise of internet media has led to even more spreading of misinformation and outright lies. What are some possible solutions? How can we address this?

One step could be the reinstatement and enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed in 1987 by Republicans during the Reagan Administration, partly on an argument of free speech restriction. Prior to it's repeal, we had a decades long golden age of reporting from the likes of Cronkite, Brinkley, Chancellor, and their reporting was considered beyond reproach. I cannot imagine anyone accusing Cronkite of "fake news". There were clearly delineated lines for opinion editorials intended to keep them from masquerading as news.

The FCC enforced the Fairness Doctrine, in fact there was a case where a private segregationist TV station owner in the south was grossly misrepresenting the Civil Rights movement and had his ticket pulled.
Of course, for libertarians who believe in minimal government, the idea of the Fairness Doctrine and its enforcement is probably anathema. But left to a laissez-faire market, we get what we have now, which is infotainment. When society cannot even agree on basic facts, it starts to resemble the Tower of Babel.

BTW, the year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, Rupert Murdoch started Fox News on a vision of news-becomes-entertainment.

[ahhrunforthehills]

Remove opinion from MSM except where explicitly stated that it's the opinion page or whatever. All news must be reported as fact only, with verifiable sources.

What about outlets like Reuters that are not biased in HOW them report, but are biased in WHAT they report? For example, they will report factual events that are beneficial to Biden at a higher frequency to that of factual events that are beneficial to Trump.

Failing to report the news is probably worse than reporting it with bias.

[pp4me]

Disagreement over basic facts and the truth is undermining our democracy. How can we have reasonable debates over differences of opinion when the underlying reality of what is true from which we build our opinions is so disputed? The rise of internet media has led to even more spreading of misinformation and outright lies. What are some possible solutions? How can we address this?

Haven't they solved that probably already in China?

[doodle]

Part of the problem I think is parties and labels. We pigeonhole discussions into two camps that then create alternative truths. Eliminating words that try to group one person's perspective and staying on topic vs dismissing ideas as liberal or conservative would help. I think absent these defining words people wouldn't know how to orient themselves regarding an issue and would focus more intently on the arguments.

[pp4me]

I know it's a couple of hundred years old but I really don't see anything better out there to deal with this problem than the first amendment.

[glennds]

I know it's a couple of hundred years old but I really don't see anything better out there to deal with this problem than the first amendment.

Isn't the problem the opposite? I.e. too much first amendment?
If any outlet can say anything and the public has no ability to critically assess it, doesn't that bring us to where we are now? And since sizzle sells more than steak, the free market will guarantee that the sensational will always outsell the bland truth.

[pp4me]

I know it's a couple of hundred years old but I really don't see anything better out there to deal with this problem than the first amendment.

Isn't the problem the opposite? I.e. too much first amendment?
If any outlet can say anything and the public has no ability to critically assess it, doesn't that bring us to where we are now? And since sizzle sells more than steak, the free market will guarantee that the sensational will always outsell the bland truth.

Maybe true. I just don't see any better alternative. A "ministry of truth" doesn't seem like the way to go to me.

[yankees60]

Hold it. We are still a competitive, capitalistic society!

Therefore, wouldn't all media be in competition to best be relied upon to present the truth? To be the best at providing it so as to get the most subscribers or viewers?

Or, is this again the case wherein The People a/k/a Consumers are the guilty ones? They are demanding what the media currently provides to them?

Vinny

[glennds]

I know it's a couple of hundred years old but I really don't see anything better out there to deal with this problem than the first amendment.

Isn't the problem the opposite? I.e. too much first amendment?
If any outlet can say anything and the public has no ability to critically assess it, doesn't that bring us to where we are now? And since sizzle sells more than steak, the free market will guarantee that the sensational will always outsell the bland truth.

Maybe true. I just don't see any better alternative. A "ministry of truth" doesn't seem like the way to go to me.

Agree. Maybe consequences for the purveyor of misinformation? If you can't back up what you are publishing or broadcasting, perhaps you should be accountable. Too punitive?
We keep doctors and lawyers honest with complaint remedies available to the public through their licensing boards.

[yankees60]

I know it's a couple of hundred years old but I really don't see anything better out there to deal with this problem than the first amendment.

Isn't the problem the opposite? I.e. too much first amendment?
If any outlet can say anything and the public has no ability to critically assess it, doesn't that bring us to where we are now? And since sizzle sells more than steak, the free market will guarantee that the sensational will always outsell the bland truth.

Maybe true. I just don't see any better alternative. A "ministry of truth" doesn't seem like the way to go to me.

Agree. Maybe consequences for the purveyor of misinformation? If you can't back up what you are publishing or broadcasting, perhaps you should be accountable. Too punitive?
We keep doctors and lawyers honest with complaint remedies available to the public through their licensing boards.

How does any of that go along with the prevailing libertarian sentiment here? Why not let the consumers decide which media should be paid attention to, which ones should be supported?

Does not each one of us do that?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

Perhaps this is an antitrust issue in media?

We normally think of antitrust law as dealing with competition in the economic/financial realm, but should it perhaps also deal with competition in the ideological realm?

What we currently have in the mainstream media is clearly an ideological monopoly. Should it be broken up somehow by the government? I'm not yet sure. But I believe the MSM's ideological monopoly has finally become so powerful that it is now a national security issue.

[yankees60]

Perhaps this is an antitrust issue in media?

We normally think of antitrust law as dealing with competition in the economic/financial realm, but should it perhaps also deal with competition in the ideological realm?

What we currently have in the mainstream media is clearly an ideological monopoly. Should it be broken up somehow by the government? I'm not yet sure. But I believe the MSM's ideological monopoly has finally become so powerful that it is now a national security issue.

Is there some kind of common ownership of CNN / MSNBC / NY Times / LA Times / Fox News and so on of which I am not aware?

They are each doing their best to cater to an audience which they believe will bring them the most revenues. Therefore as Pogo famously stated:

Capture.JPG (37.28 KiB) Viewed 4261 times

Vinny

[Tortoise]

Is there some kind of common ownership of CNN / MSNBC / NY Times / LA Times / Fox News and so on of which I am not aware?

I'm suggesting a distinction between economic/financial monopoly (the kind you're referring to) and ideological monopoly. I.e., should antitrust law consider situations in which a handful of large, powerful media corporations -- whose purpose is to provide news -- may not necessarily share common ownership, but they do share a common ideology that a large fraction of the American population does not align with?

They are each doing their best to cater to an audience which they believe will bring them the most revenues.

Although the profit motive is definitely a factor, I'm not fully convinced that it paints the complete picture. What about the ideological motivations of the management at the various media corporations?

[yankees60]

Is there some kind of common ownership of CNN / MSNBC / NY Times / LA Times / Fox News and so on of which I am not aware?

I'm suggesting a distinction between economic/financial monopoly (the kind you're referring to) and ideological monopoly. I.e., should antitrust law consider situations in which a handful of large, powerful media corporations -- whose purpose is to provide news -- may not necessarily share common ownership, but they do share a common ideology that a large fraction of the American population does not align with?

They are each doing their best to cater to an audience which they believe will bring them the most revenues.

Although the profit motive is definitely a factor, I'm not fully convinced that it paints the complete picture. What about the ideological motivations of the management at the various media corporations?

They are corporations! Corporations, not politicians, run our country. Their only ideology is financial. If they are biased, they are going to be biased in the area that provides them the most revenues.

Fox News is the most shining example of this. It was a heavy influence in other media outlets then becoming more biased in the hunt for ratings.

Plus, you completely leave out radio. Name ONE liberal radio network or personality. I don't think you will be able to because there are none. Radio is completely dominated by the conservatives.

Radio is media. Do you want your proposals to also apply to radio?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

Radio? You mean that form of media that most people in civilized Western nations no longer consume?

[yankees60]

Radio? You mean that form of media that most people in civilized Western nations no longer consume?

Maybe for you but not for ....

https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-l ... listeners/

EIB Audience Models Project 43 Million Listeners


I was shocked to read at some point that CNN's average audience is only about 500,000.

Last I looked 43 million is WAY, more than 0.5 million.

And, that is only Rush L. There are a lot of other extremely popular conservative radio shows.

Here you go:

https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/conse ... id/972203/

Newsmax's List of Top Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts


I know of NOT one liberal radio person / show. You?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

EIB Audience Models Project 43 Million Listeners[/i]

I was shocked to read at some point that CNN's average audience is only about 500,000.

Last I looked 43 million is WAY, more than 0.5 million.

And, that is only Rush L. There are a lot of other extremely popular conservative radio shows.

Huh. Color me a bit surprised. I was under the impression that radio had become a dinosaur and that radio consumption had been declining for many years in favor of other types of media (especially online). Looks like I might have been mistaken.

I know of NOT one liberal radio person / show. You?

Yes, pretty much any FM morning radio talk show. They're generally entertainment-focused and not explicitly political, but the hosts usually seem to inject plenty of left-leaning jokes and political commentary into those shows -- at least where I live here in coastal Southern California. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country.

It seems like AM radio leans right and FM radio leans left. AM generally has crappier sound quality and lower production value, so I had assumed it was reaching a smaller audience than FM. Looks like I could be mistaken about that.

In any case, even if the 43 million figure is accurate, that's about 13% of the American population. It seems like TV/cable news reaches far more people than AM radio, and it definitely leans left except for Fox News. And even Fox seems to have TDS now.

[flyingpylon]

Radio? You mean that form of media that most people in civilized Western nations no longer consume?

Maybe for you but not for ....

https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-l ... listeners/

EIB Audience Models Project 43 Million Listeners


I was shocked to read at some point that CNN's average audience is only about 500,000.

Last I looked 43 million is WAY, more than 0.5 million.

And, that is only Rush L. There are a lot of other extremely popular conservative radio shows.

Here you go:

https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/conse ... id/972203/

Newsmax's List of Top Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts


I know of NOT one liberal radio person / show. You?

Vinny

If people wanted to listen to leftist talk radio, there would be money to be made. If there were money to be made, someone would broadcast leftist talk radio.

[doodle]

Listening to Tucker Carlson...guys like this are the problem. He is literally lecturing his audience about how to think about Joe Biden...a ten minute monologue....probably has uttered the words liberal 20 times. Liberals think this....this is how they are.....this is what they want to do to you....this is how they are going to take away your freedoms. I can see how night after night of listening to shit like this it could begin to completely color your thinking. The same goes for Rachel Maddow as a counter example on the left.

I honestly believe that these individuals are going to end up unraveling our nation. They are literally propagandists. They should be disgusted by their lack of intellectual honesty and academic integrity. Their audiences should be outraged....but it feels so good to be a part of something bigger that yourself. A member of a tribe...us vs them...good vs evil.

[yankees60]

EIB Audience Models Project 43 Million Listeners[/i]

I was shocked to read at some point that CNN's average audience is only about 500,000.

Last I looked 43 million is WAY, more than 0.5 million.

And, that is only Rush L. There are a lot of other extremely popular conservative radio shows.

Huh. Color me a bit surprised. I was under the impression that radio had become a dinosaur and that radio consumption had been declining for many years in favor of other types of media (especially online). Looks like I might have been mistaken.

I know of NOT one liberal radio person / show. You?

Yes, pretty much any FM morning radio talk show. They're generally entertainment-focused and not explicitly political, but the hosts usually seem to inject plenty of left-leaning jokes and political commentary into those shows -- at least where I live here in coastal Southern California. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country.

It seems like AM radio leans right and FM radio leans left. AM generally has crappier sound quality and lower production value, so I had assumed it was reaching a smaller audience than FM. Looks like I could be mistaken about that.

In any case, even if the 43 million figure is accurate, that's about 13% of the American population. It seems like TV/cable news reaches far more people than AM radio, and it definitely leans left except for Fox News. And even Fox seems to have TDS now.

I only listen to a sport talk radio show out of Boston. The morning 6 AM to 10 AM show is oftentimes highly political. The two extremely long-term hosts that they had for decades were extremely conservative. I believe that if either of both of them had been transported back to Germany in the 1930s that they would have been "Good Germans" and supported Hitler and the Nazi cause.

The current morning crew is not as intense conservative but still conservative. And, the more I think about it just about all political comments made by any of the other hosts in any other time slot are generally also conservative. Are sports fans, even in an ultra-liberal city like Boston generally conservative so this espoused conservatism plays well with the audience of sports talk radio?

Look at how few people (relatively) watch the popular news channel shows. I'm sure you will shocked by how few people actually watch them.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/f ... l-of-cable


Vinny

[Tortoise]

Their audiences should be outraged....but it feels so good to be a part of something bigger that yourself. A member of a tribe...us vs them...good vs evil.

You realize that the never-Trumpers are effectively a tribe too, right?

[yankees60]

Radio? You mean that form of media that most people in civilized Western nations no longer consume?

Maybe for you but not for ....

https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-l ... listeners/

EIB Audience Models Project 43 Million Listeners


I was shocked to read at some point that CNN's average audience is only about 500,000.

Last I looked 43 million is WAY, more than 0.5 million.

And, that is only Rush L. There are a lot of other extremely popular conservative radio shows.

Here you go:

https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/conse ... id/972203/

Newsmax's List of Top Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts


I know of NOT one liberal radio person / show. You?

Vinny

If people wanted to listen to leftist talk radio, there would be money to be made. If there were money to be made, someone would broadcast leftist talk radio.

Exactly!

Al Gore tried to create a liberal radio network but it did not last long, failing miserably.

But does that mean we should then shut down all the conservative radio because political radio just has one ideology? I'd never say that. But from what I read here...

Vinny

[yankees60]

Listening to Tucker Carlson...guys like this are the problem. He is literally lecturing his audience about how to think about Joe Biden...a ten minute monologue....probably has uttered the words liberal 20 times. Liberals think this....this is how they are.....this is what they want to do to you....this is how they are going to take away your freedoms. I can see how night after night of listening to shit like this it could begin to completely color your thinking. The same goes for Rachel Maddow as a counter example on the left.

I honestly believe that these individuals are going to end up unraveling our nation. They are literally propagandists. They should be disgusted by their lack of intellectual honesty and academic integrity. Their audiences should be outraged....but it feels so good to be a part of something bigger that yourself. A member of a tribe...us vs them...good vs evil.

It's why C-Span is my #1, always!

They show the entire event. No interruptions. No commentary. They invite guests across the entire political spectrum. They call on callers in a way so as to balance the different political views.

Try it! You might like it!

Vinny

[doodle]

Their audiences should be outraged....but it feels so good to be a part of something bigger that yourself. A member of a tribe...us vs them...good vs evil.

You realize that the never-Trumpers are effectively a tribe too, right?

Yes, and no.

Yes in the sense that the media did have an agenda to frame Trump in a particular light. They absolutely went after him...and a lot of the reports concerning him we're cherry picked and sensationalized. The media attempted to show him in the worst light possible almost all the time.

No, in the sense that I think that beyond the realm of politics it was very apparent just by reading Trump's tweets that he was an unstable individual with personality characteristics ill suited to the demands of the office. His penchant for lying and extreme exaggerations, insulting opponents, casting blame, upheaval and turmoil within his adminsitration etc was not something I needed the media to indoctrinate me on. Just by observing him was enough for me to call myself a 'Never Trumper'.

I think however in contrast to the right wing stalwarts on this forum, I am pretty much a free agent when it comes to political parties. If the Republicans run an individual of character...maybe a Bill Weld type individual...even Mitt Romney I have been quite impressed with as one of the only party members with the balls and spine to stand up to Trump...Jon Huntsman...another one....I'd vote republican in a heart beat.