There should be a law against the media bias that has crept into our discourse. ItтАЩs not what the framers intended. They wanted the media to investigate politicians to hold them accountable. ThatтАЩs not happening.
I think the larger problem is that "social" "media" is completely unregulated. It functions as the Fourth Estate did during the French Revolution which led to mob rule. I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately. During the lead-up to, during,and after the American Revolution we had the likes of Franklin, Paine and others who self-published. I think those publications must have been perceived by the readers the same way each of us perceive information from our preferred source, including Common Sense. But the difference is the mass dissemination available now. I think it is high time to treat social media platforms as publishers. Make sure they have some skin in the game and accountability for misdeeds. IMO everyone should walk away from Fakebook. As far as the MSM it astonishes me that there is no meaningful accountability. Traditionally a journalist or publisher was liable for libel if they published false information about someone but that has been completely eroded, at least as far as public figures are concerned. And we, as the consumers of their blatantly false information, seem to just belly up to the same trough.
Absolutely right - social media outlets either need to be treated as publishers and carry the corresponding liability, OR they need to be treated as common carriers and be prohibited from interfering with with content altogether. Right now, they have it both ways - can interfere with content with no strict liability for the content they carry.
My problem is with the national news networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and the national news papers (NYT, WaPo, etcтАж). These are the ones where integrity should carry the day. They should speak the truth and investigate leads. Not engage in bias, amplifying a falsehood or silencing a story.
I could really care less about social media platforms and cable news. They are click bate and worthless to me. If someone gets their news from these sources, they deserve what they get.
You are referring to the "legacy media." The standard in the day was to report facts and the viewer/listener/reader decide what he/she thought about it. I still think Brokaw, Cronkite and their peers were reliable, not infallible but reliable. Today it is as if a of the media - legacy, mainstream, print, online social - have a vested interest in teing us what to think. But I think part of it is that there is precious little investigationn of the facts anymore. One outlet picks up a story and everyone else follows suit. So it is the same old shit over and over and over. The first misrepresentation is that any of it is actual news. I seem to remember a good while back reading that all media outlets were removing or severely downsizing investigative journalists. I did not understand the significance at the time.
Well that is rich. "Our duty is to be fair to the truth. . . . But we have to stand ready and be push back and call out falsehoods." Earlier he opined that the sun sets in the west is fact so no reason to waste time with contrary information as if the sun setting in the west is newsworthy. This perfectly illustrates Orwell's doublespeak. The problem is that he or his kind do not recognize the truth when confronted with it.
Like all authoritarians, the "truth" is whatever THEY say it is. And if the facts get a little too obvious, they will instantly pivot and claim that they've always been telling the truth.
The moment I heard Leftists claiming that it was *Republicans* who want to defund the police (as if we hadn't heard that cry loud and clear from Leftists throughout 2020), I understood that we are now dealing with people who have no interest whatsoever in the truth.
You'll notice that the guy who survived his attack on Kyle Rittenhouse was obliged by the video evidence to admit that Kyle didn't shoot him until he pointed his own gun at Kyle. But after the trial, he was quick to tell the Leftist media the opposite: that Kyle fired at him for no reason. And I don't believe any of those eager "journalists" called him out on the difference between his post trial statements and his testimony, let alone the difference between his statements and the video evidence.
Oh! Also, there's a law or a regulation or SOMETHIN' that's called Section 230 that let's them get away with all that. A few pols have mentioned reworking that. Would help, but not sure how MUCH it'd help.
Yes that is the start. Some Republican candidates are making reformation part of their campaigns. But as the article said everyone should be outraged not just the side that was exploited. I hear my Republican friends saying we need to one-up the Democrats this cycle. But I think we have been doing that to each other since the Bush Gore election at least. My only question at this point is how low will we go? I want no part of that mentality.
I agree with that last. Problem is I think we're looking at a BOTTOMLESS pit.
My own PERSONAL opinion is that the fastest way to undo what's going on is very SEVERE application of non-monopoly laws. Break 'em up into pieces, and hope ONE-a 'em would cater to non-censoring all opposing opinions and something closer to the truth. ICBW. Or just a plain law that outlaws ALL censoring, would do. I guess mebbe hat's part-a the 230 stuff. It's built=in that there's zero accountability because they're private companies that can do whatever they want, right? Or not?
Newspapers valued First Amendment rights. That at the most basic level is the problem with social media. You should be able to voice your opinion without being shut down for it. They have escaped repercussions so far because they claim they are not publishers. I call BS on that.
I pay as little attention to news as I can. Which most days is zero. I used to read headlines, and once-every-great-while an article. Yahoo was my gatekeeper, probably better 'n Google, but not by much.
Nowadays? Almost never. Too easy to get caught up in the issue du jour, right? (He says, after spending all day here. Ah well...) Seriously, I look in on a few Substacks and comments. And they have their own biases, right?
Yahoo used to be my favorite, before they dropped the comments. I found it useful to read the (mostly) conservative counterpoints in the comments that explained the other side of whatever flaming progressive position the article took.
I'm with Ya, Sir Katz. Only thing to be done is read the stuff and read into it what they DON'T say. That's what I try ta do, anyway, when I bother to make the effort.
Naw, that would imply separate brains, right? What I'm "talking" about is ONE brain (about the size of a bee's) shared amongst ALL-a 'em. Therein the problem.
In 2020, The New York Post published Hunter's emails. The New York Times published the 1619 Project. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Actually, 1619 Project was published in 2019 to mark 400 years.....
Good contrast.
Exactly, ALL of social media completely suppressed that Post story and this action greatly influenced the 2020 election. Collusion anyone?
There should be a law against the media bias that has crept into our discourse. ItтАЩs not what the framers intended. They wanted the media to investigate politicians to hold them accountable. ThatтАЩs not happening.
I think the larger problem is that "social" "media" is completely unregulated. It functions as the Fourth Estate did during the French Revolution which led to mob rule. I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately. During the lead-up to, during,and after the American Revolution we had the likes of Franklin, Paine and others who self-published. I think those publications must have been perceived by the readers the same way each of us perceive information from our preferred source, including Common Sense. But the difference is the mass dissemination available now. I think it is high time to treat social media platforms as publishers. Make sure they have some skin in the game and accountability for misdeeds. IMO everyone should walk away from Fakebook. As far as the MSM it astonishes me that there is no meaningful accountability. Traditionally a journalist or publisher was liable for libel if they published false information about someone but that has been completely eroded, at least as far as public figures are concerned. And we, as the consumers of their blatantly false information, seem to just belly up to the same trough.
Absolutely right - social media outlets either need to be treated as publishers and carry the corresponding liability, OR they need to be treated as common carriers and be prohibited from interfering with with content altogether. Right now, they have it both ways - can interfere with content with no strict liability for the content they carry.
My problem is with the national news networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and the national news papers (NYT, WaPo, etcтАж). These are the ones where integrity should carry the day. They should speak the truth and investigate leads. Not engage in bias, amplifying a falsehood or silencing a story.
I could really care less about social media platforms and cable news. They are click bate and worthless to me. If someone gets their news from these sources, they deserve what they get.
You are referring to the "legacy media." The standard in the day was to report facts and the viewer/listener/reader decide what he/she thought about it. I still think Brokaw, Cronkite and their peers were reliable, not infallible but reliable. Today it is as if a of the media - legacy, mainstream, print, online social - have a vested interest in teing us what to think. But I think part of it is that there is precious little investigationn of the facts anymore. One outlet picks up a story and everyone else follows suit. So it is the same old shit over and over and over. The first misrepresentation is that any of it is actual news. I seem to remember a good while back reading that all media outlets were removing or severely downsizing investigative journalists. I did not understand the significance at the time.
Wasn't there an incident a little back where journalists were saying that it would be unethical to present the news objectively?
Didn't Lester Holt say something very similar to that?
Not that I recall. But it would not surprise me. It is consistent with the belief that we the citizens cannot handle the truth.
Here it is. Lester Holt https://thehill.com/homenews/media/545803-lester-holt-warns-media-against-giving-a-platform-for-misinformation
Well that is rich. "Our duty is to be fair to the truth. . . . But we have to stand ready and be push back and call out falsehoods." Earlier he opined that the sun sets in the west is fact so no reason to waste time with contrary information as if the sun setting in the west is newsworthy. This perfectly illustrates Orwell's doublespeak. The problem is that he or his kind do not recognize the truth when confronted with it.
Like all authoritarians, the "truth" is whatever THEY say it is. And if the facts get a little too obvious, they will instantly pivot and claim that they've always been telling the truth.
The moment I heard Leftists claiming that it was *Republicans* who want to defund the police (as if we hadn't heard that cry loud and clear from Leftists throughout 2020), I understood that we are now dealing with people who have no interest whatsoever in the truth.
You'll notice that the guy who survived his attack on Kyle Rittenhouse was obliged by the video evidence to admit that Kyle didn't shoot him until he pointed his own gun at Kyle. But after the trial, he was quick to tell the Leftist media the opposite: that Kyle fired at him for no reason. And I don't believe any of those eager "journalists" called him out on the difference between his post trial statements and his testimony, let alone the difference between his statements and the video evidence.
We need to hold the legacy media accountable for speaking the truth.
Oh! Also, there's a law or a regulation or SOMETHIN' that's called Section 230 that let's them get away with all that. A few pols have mentioned reworking that. Would help, but not sure how MUCH it'd help.
Yes that is the start. Some Republican candidates are making reformation part of their campaigns. But as the article said everyone should be outraged not just the side that was exploited. I hear my Republican friends saying we need to one-up the Democrats this cycle. But I think we have been doing that to each other since the Bush Gore election at least. My only question at this point is how low will we go? I want no part of that mentality.
I agree with that last. Problem is I think we're looking at a BOTTOMLESS pit.
My own PERSONAL opinion is that the fastest way to undo what's going on is very SEVERE application of non-monopoly laws. Break 'em up into pieces, and hope ONE-a 'em would cater to non-censoring all opposing opinions and something closer to the truth. ICBW. Or just a plain law that outlaws ALL censoring, would do. I guess mebbe hat's part-a the 230 stuff. It's built=in that there's zero accountability because they're private companies that can do whatever they want, right? Or not?
Newspapers valued First Amendment rights. That at the most basic level is the problem with social media. You should be able to voice your opinion without being shut down for it. They have escaped repercussions so far because they claim they are not publishers. I call BS on that.
I pay as little attention to news as I can. Which most days is zero. I used to read headlines, and once-every-great-while an article. Yahoo was my gatekeeper, probably better 'n Google, but not by much.
Nowadays? Almost never. Too easy to get caught up in the issue du jour, right? (He says, after spending all day here. Ah well...) Seriously, I look in on a few Substacks and comments. And they have their own biases, right?
Yahoo used to be my favorite, before they dropped the comments. I found it useful to read the (mostly) conservative counterpoints in the comments that explained the other side of whatever flaming progressive position the article took.
I'm with Ya, Sir Katz. Only thing to be done is read the stuff and read into it what they DON'T say. That's what I try ta do, anyway, when I bother to make the effort.
I'm not sure it's collusion. I think it's just that they all share one brain. Haha!
The hive.
Naw, that would imply separate brains, right? What I'm "talking" about is ONE brain (about the size of a bee's) shared amongst ALL-a 'em. Therein the problem.