What if the result of that is that in smaller cities or rural areas they end up with no news outlets?
Another good question.
Another good article … if yer’ interested:
My town still has a local paper, but it’s really become little more than a rag – an extension of the Chamber of Commerce, if you will.
Times be hard. Money be scarce. It’s all about the ad revenues and those are hard to come by. They almost won’t cover bad news about our town unless it’s reflexively – because it was covered by the metro paper of an hour or so away from us.
Everything’s a feel-good story. Nothing can risk rocking the boat (a strong economy, solid growth, a housing bubble), and bad news stories definitely rock boats.
Nothing celebrates my town … like … my town.
I’m not sure the local paper in my town is a net positive.
I doubt it would be all that common anyway. I’m not sure about journalists, but among politicians I can think of only two in my lifetime that changed their (from evil to good) ways. The two I can think of are Robert Byrd and Justin Amash.
Ultimately the only way to defeat disinformation is to discredit disinformation.
If it became widely known (and truthfully so) that Fox is in fact a subdivision of Russian intelligence, it’s attraction would collapse. QAnon is actually funded by the Chinese Army? The right would quit listening.
It’s pretty clear these things are funded by somebody trying to vandalize the USA. Now we just need to find out who they are. Whether a government or a malefactor of great wealth, somebody got this ball rolling and keeps it rolling.
In theory, we could have some sort of fairness doctrine setup, as other countries do. However, this seems doomed to failure with the Internet making it so easy to set up a fake news site.
I also don’t see how breaking up news organizations would work so well for this, either. Because Fox News isn’t where the anti-MLM people get their news anymore. It’s from a bunch of smaller websites.
Sure, maybe you could break up the Facebooks and Googles, but I actually think those organizations are what is keeping the whole online world from fragmenting completely. Once those who deny reality have their own search engines and social media that’s actually popular, they’re gone for good.
I’m all for the current strategy of forcing big online companies to combat false information. They’re informally coming up with ways to fact check, and I could see those ideas becoming required by making them liable for bad actions that can be shown to come from the false information.
Who determines what is true? The courts, as they have done since their inception. Sure, they could be compromised, but, at that point, we’d already be sunk. If the courts are willing to ignore facts, then society breaks down
Not that I’m saying any of this is practical in the U.S. However, other countries (especially those who already have some sort of fact requirement for news) might be able to pull this off, and that would push international companies to conform, just as other regulations have.
These are my ideas, at least. Feel free to rip them to shreds. All I know for sure is that, right now, I am very thankful for that part of Facebook that is explaining how elections actually work, and refusing the nonsense. And Facebook is doing this all because it’s afraid that it will face problems otherwise under a Democratic administration. Even under a Republican one, they were put on blast for spreading false info that could compromise elections. (And I did notice how they changed tact as it became more clear Biden was favored to win.)
It’s not enough to demonstrate something is true. You also have to make people accept it. That’s where you’d run into a problem. You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.
Dude, cable exists so everyone is going to get as near a news outlet as currently exists, and without giant conglomerates choking out the airwaves maybe we can have a return to low power local radio stations and anyone can publish on the internet. I don’t think it’s a big enough problem to cause us to continue with inaction when we have a Sinclair level of enforced unanimity in the “news.” Seriously, think any of this is applicable to all the outlets it was forced onto?
We could do something about the broadcast channels, they come under FCC regs. They can- and have- been censored.
I visited my mother last Sunday and we talked about about the election. She is a Trump supporter, I am not, and we couldn’t even agree on the basic facts of the election. She believes voter fraud was rampant with thousands of “dead” people voting for Biden and the exclusion of Republican observers as evidence of Democratic skullduggery. I voiced my exasperation at a sitting president who let us know before the election even started that he wouldn’t concede, who encouraged his supporters not to vote by mail, and who attempted to sabotage mail in votes by preventing the post office from operating efficiently. My mother said she never heard of any of that.
I’m with you. I don’t know how to deal with it and I fight it frightening. In years past, I might vehemently disagree with someone’s position but for the most part we at least agreed on the basic facts. When there was a mass shooting at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas in 1991 the pro and anti-gun control sides all agreed that it happened though both sides had wildly different interpretations for why and how to best handle it. The idea that it might have been a false flag operation and the victims were hired actors would not have found purchase nearly thirty years ago. But now? Yeah, you have to seriously contend with people who deny reality.
Exactly. I was in College Station when that went down, and while it’s one of the most conservative places I’ve ever been, there was absolutely no question that the attack had happened, that Hennard was mentally ill, and that it wasn’t something policing could have prevented.
Of course, the two sides took different tacks- one side viewed it as a matter of people providing for their own defense, and went for concealed carry legislation, and the other viewed it as a problem of weapon availability and pushed for gun restrictions. Both equally valid viewpoints when you get right down to it- just different solutions for the same problem.
Nowadays, we can’t even agree on what the problem is, or how it happened. And like you say, someone probably would have claimed that Hennard was crashing into the Luby’s so he could get the Democrat pedophiles working in the back.
Let us start by requiring broadcast radio to adhere to a reasonable standard of political truthfulness. 100% legal. Same with broadcast TV.
Who is going to make up that truth council? You do realize every institution is susceptible to partisan capture?
But who defines “truthful”?
There was a certain period of time when a journalist writing about MKULTRA, or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, probably could have been successfully prosecuted under your standard, even though every word they were writing was accurate.
The FCC
So the current FCC is 3-2 R. You’re OK with them determining the truth?
All of that costs money. Where does that money come from?
That’s a problem as well, and I would certainly favor some sort of anti-trust or other method for breaking them up.
I’m just saying that in the end, there may no longer be any sort of local news for you to tune into.
It wont be in a couple months, but not everything is politcal.
And remember, if the FCC did levy a fine for out & out lying the station could appeal it to the courts.
For the layperson, this is an excellent source for determining the validity of the news these outlets broadcast.
Why would you want any government agency determining the truth?
Who would you choose? The media? The Church?
Remember, the question here is: “Can anything be done…” not “Should anything be done…”
Yes, something can be done.