Yellow news isn’t particularly new and machine politics used to be more extreme. We’re all comparing things to how they were during the span of our lives and seeing that it’s been getting worse. But, it’s hard to compare that to - for example - the time just before the Civil War. Arguably, it may have been worse then - given the outcome - but, alternately, it might have just been that people were conditioned to commit more extreme acts of destructiveness during that era rather than that the news was more politicized. It’s hard to say without having lived in those times and being able to see how the people were reacting to the information that they were being given.
But I would argue that the better solution is political reform more than it’s information reform (aka censorship, etc.)
For one, I’d argue that people get more politicized the more that they feel like their input matters. In the history of mutinies and revolutions, they occurred under weak, malleable, and ineffective leadership not when the leadership was so terribly cruel. When people feel like they can change things, that’s where their noses poke up and they start howling. Simple tweaks like not announcing the votes of individual representatives in Congress - i.e. only announcing the results, not the “who” - shuts down the ability for the people to police the people that they elected. And without that power, they’ll be less interested.
For another, that’s true of special interests as well. Put up an obfuscation layer between donations and receipts - holding it in some trust that pools several candidates and only provides a balance range with no names - and I suspect that you’ll find that political donations drop and the congress critters start deciding things a bit more apolitically again.
Further improve that by taking Alaska’s open primary, four-candidate, ranked choice system and you’re going to be getting the less radical candidates who have proven immune from partisan nonsense getting into office.
The path is there. It’s just a matter of pushing your representatives to do it.
Firstly on the censorship thing, I think a lot of the problem here is the American conception that you must allow willful lies to have “real” free speech. And yet, most people are comfortable that corporations can sue for misinformation.
There is a societal benefit to allowing the free exchange of opinions and good-faith reporting. There is no benefit to allowing people to style themselves as news and knowingly lie.
(This is normally the point where someone says “Who gets to decide what is true?”, but the critical part is knowingly, not the truth value of the statement. If the speaker cannot point to any reason for saying X, or even is aware that not X is true, then that’s a deliberate lie. It’s not necessary to protect that any more than protect Fox’s right to lie about dominion)
Secondly on powerful leaders, the proximate issue is not revolutions, but belief in disinformation. And that’s much more prevalent in places where people are less empowered, under authoritarian leaders.
I agree. CNN is just as guilty as Fox, and have also been cleaning house. They just fired Don Lemon, and already got rid of Brian Stelter and a couple of the other partisan types. Maybe the media is trying to re-find normal… Nah.
Are you sure that isn’t a function of your own bias? I have the same impression, but I have never listened to Beck or watched The Blaze. He was a bit unavoidable when he was on Fox, so everyone knew who he was. But in the end, he only had a one-hour show there.
If someone is hauling in tens of millions per year as a media figure, he must be influencing someone. Blaze TV gets about 12 million views per month. Beck has written 35 books, including three NY Times #1 best sellers. His speaking fees range between $50,000 and $100,00 per event. I’d say Fox News was just a small part of his influence.
CNN is not blameless, but it’s ludicrous to suggest “just as guilty”. If this wasn’t clear from a sober analysis of misinformation spread by the respective channels, or stats collated by fact checking sites, the size of the dominion settlement (and there are more to come) is a pretty unambiguous indicator of the scale of the lies on Fox.
I’m not of that persuasion. I just think that it’s going to be a lot more difficult to figure out how to correct that. For example:
People have been reading about Bigfoot Sightings since I was born and this website has been fighting Ignorance without a budge in the trenchlines in 50-some years.
Belief in disinformation is intractable. You might be able to reduce misinformation by small amounts by, for example, making it more economical to bring a defamation suit to court (as suggested in the other thread). But you’re probably going to get more bang for your buck by reducing the value of political spending and the practical effectiveness of disinformation.
The individual personalities getting the heave-ho off the airwaves certainly lowers their influence. But Fox News has such a deep and established channel already I am sure they will not miss a beat in filling Mr Carlson’s shoes. They gotta keep the gravy train going - who will emerge next to keep eyes on the channel, and when?
Sure. Step 1 though is a general appreciation that there’s no benefit to society in protecting willful lies. Hence why I make this point, here and elsewhere.
You may as well say theft has always happened, therefore let’s do nothing about it.
And anyway, there has been a change: it’s gotten worse in places like the US. Both in terms of the scale of the lies (democrats are wearing the skin of babies in demonic rituals!) and the number of adherents.
When you’re dealing with matters of Freedom of Speech, the right for people to select their preferred candidate freely, etc. then big dramatic changes that target one thing and hit it hard are liable to cut too hard to be politically achievable. And even if you do get it passed, your theory that this is the fix might prove to have been wrong and now you’ve spent all your political capital on something that totally missed the mark. We don’t have a control USA and test USAs that we can run our ideas on beforehand. Making an assumption that there’s one solution and only one solution is a system liable to fail.
You’re better off to take small cuts out of lots of things that are directly and indirectly related to your target. You might get some passed into law and others not - it’s more likely if they’re all small improvements. Some will be effective and others won’t be. None will be so large that the unintended consequences can’t be dealt with.
Kinda. Provided we killed all the USAians and simply borrowed a few million Canadians to seed the regrowth. Kinda like taking cuttings from successful plants.
As with most social problems, the people that grew up crooked under crooked incentives have a hard time adapting to living straight under straight incentives. It’s sorta chicken and egg. You have to fix both before you can fix either.
I agree. He lost his power in an instant, which was considerable. Fox took it from him. He’ll still make money, but my (theoretical) grandpa/Mom/Uncle is not going to know how to listen to his podcast or know that he even has one.
I had a boomer ask me last year what a podcast was. If it’s not a number they can punch into a remote, most of his base aren’t going to be able to find him.
Tucker has been in trouble before, but prevailed against slander accusations back in 2020 when a Trump-appointed judge sided with Fox lawyers who argued that no reasonable person would take him seriously …
A meme making the rounds in right-wing conspiracy circles focuses on the real reason Fox dumped Tucker Carlson - Tucker’s brave stand against Big Pharma.
You see, Tucker issued one of his antivax bleats a few days before his firing, and that was just too much for the Pfizerilluminati, who pressured his bosses to get rid of him.
RFK Jr. is among those who’ve revealed the devilish plan.
A Facebook friend posted this in response to my posting of Carlson’s ouster:
Careful what you wish for ! Tucker has so much more to tell us, he knows far more than he was allowed to report on the DS channel you fear so much ! we have now entered a new phase and I simply can not wait to watch ! buckle up, my Trump hating friend, this war is almost over !
Tucker has so much more to tell us, he knows far more than he was allowed to report on the DS channel you fear so much ! 
we have now entered a new phase and I simply can not wait to watch ! 
buckle up, my Trump hating friend, this war is almost over ! 