I think they’re following the “offense is the best defense” strategy, which can be effective. It’s been working for them so far, even if it probably isn’t a good recipe for a cohesive society.
3 Likes
It worked for Trump! I keep saying it, the right gets all their best new tricks from the left 
Well, it worked until it didn’t work. Although I suppose a second act isn’t completely outside the realm of possibility.
1 Like
have you?
It’s so sad but what can you do. Nothing, less than nothing. Not even challenging your own behavior, maybe don’t drive but take your bike.
Fox is the runaway leader in cable news with an average viewership of …1.2 million. CNN had 650,000, MSNBC 800,000- out of a total population 16 and over of 300 million. So less than 1% of the population is concerned enough about politics to turn on the TV.
2 Likes
indeed
1 Like
You don’t need to turn on a TV to be concerned about politics. In fact it’s probably a bad sign.
1 Like
In terms of network news, networks should be regulated to more clearly label news segments versus editorial opinion. Same with content they post online. Sometimes a news segment will lead with news then follow with opinions, again just put a label up when it’s opinion time.
For the individual liars, better just to educate people better on information filtering, in concert with mocking bad faithers.
Lying and misinformation is going to be scaled up more and more in coming years. I think I read something about China committing to disinformation campaigns even more strongly. Goes without saying though.
Society needs to go through a phase where it becomes better educated about information filtering, and not just absorb the first thing they see as fact. Part of which involves learning the patterns and tendencies of bad faith players. When you make even the smallest effort to notice, they stand out rather easily I think.
So in social media, I’d say the individual platforms should continue to make efforts to eradicate bot accounts, as for the rest let people figure it out unless someone is violating TOS or endangering public well-being (always the private platform’s discretion of course).
People are inundated with content more and more, not just political stuff. I figure eventually much of society will start to tune out the noise and adjust.
1 Like
Of course they have a point. Glass houses and all that.
It is the same as talking about human rights while having the worlds biggest prison population.
About foreign interference in American elections while changing regimes everywhere.
You have to do as you ask others to do.
2 Likes
I also need to ask the definitions of media people and media outlets, and perpetual.
1 Like
True, …, the US has some catching up to do…
https://www.healtheuropa.eu/im-going-to-china-theyre-shooting-my-donor/97063/
[while this is technically a citation, the quote in the article used for the headline is, lol, unattributed]
1 Like
So would subject verb agreement.
1 Like
Why should milkman challenge his own behavior for disagree with…who? You? That’s hilarious. 
I believe the current consensus is “Mark Zuckerberg”, which has the dubious advantage of horrifying everyone about equally.
2 Likes
Print media has been free under the 1st Amendment and various rules in other countries like Canada, Britain etc (though not as strong as the 1st). America used to have the Fairness Doctrine, where networks were obligated to give various (mainstream) views coverage in exchange for free use of the airwaves. With cable, that went out the window, giving rise to Fox News, MSNBC etc. The new stations were covered under the 1st, as were social media outlets when they sprung up.
Facebook, Youtube etc are private companies, and have no more obligation to give any individual access than a publisher has the obligation to publish anyone- in spite of Josh Hawley’s whining about the First Amendment.
As long as anyone is free to start up a company on social media, no, banning people- liars or not- from media is a terrible idea. If they slander or libel someone, there are courts for that.
1 Like
Outright lies that are actually able to be proven without a fraction of the doubt, sure. But i would prefer they tackle people that lie in public office first, then the sciences, then education, then work on media.
But to be fair many things people think are media are not, people are just dumb. Many are technically opinion peices. Perhaps a good happy medium is having a more observable warning label on such shows and writing, kind of like cigarettes now. Cant not see that. Seems fair.
2 Likes
Some background for those not in the know or unborn at the time:
1 Like
I prefer doing the tough stuff first, so media first, then schools. Why wait until you have a healthy patient before using a rusty scalpel on him?
You think media is tougher to sort out than politicians, public workers, education and academia?
China might disagree with you on that. Eg. Hong Kong hehe
America isn’t China. heh heh
Yep, I do. Additionally, they are the ones that bring us the others…unless we’re all going so local so as not to be able to access nonlocal news. The old eyes on the ground below you routine that propels Centralized thinking. The Apple Daily case proves that that happens when the media isn’t held to high enough standards. No one will miss their rubbernecking man on the street ahem journalism in six months as it will have been replaced by The Core or some other gossip rag.