4 ms·

I hear you, this is the old debate of incentives versus regulation: which one should you use in order to extract the outcome you believe is better. I don't know

I hear you, this is the old debate of incentives versus regulation: which one should you use in order to extract the outcome you believe is better. I don't know. The problem with "convince media companies" to have backbone is one of incentives. Media companies are fighting amongst them, and if the incentives are such that the ones that "have a backbone" will always lose to the ones that don't, then your approach is a non-starter (and I believe this is currently the case because viewers demand that the media company have "access"). So how could you align a media company having a backbone with it winning in the media company competition? Well, for example by targeting a niche audience that hates seeing media companies pandering for the establishment. With that audience, your media company would win. Of course, only small companies target small niches. Then the question becomes: is that audience big enough that the big established media companies notice and want to gun for it? Then there's an additional complication which is that with your method media companies aren't _really_ calling out poor bad governmental behaviours, but only having the appearance of doing so. That is, they try to appeal to the "no bullshit crowd" by calling out minor pre-negociated points, while still cuddling with the government on the things that really matter. It's a complicated world.

maxerickson 10y ago
Again, what does compliance with your rule look like? How do journalists do journalism if they can't talk to key players in the stories they investigate?
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  Again, I don't know. Maybe the answer isn't that they can't talk altogether, but that regulations should be put in place for communications. For example, if a journalist wants to talk to a government official they can do so whenever the government officla say so, but the _full_ content of the conversation has to be made available to all media companies before any one of them can publish anything. The downside with this approach is that it removes the incentive of any one media company to put much resources into investigative journalism that gets it scoops from conversations with the government. The upside with this approach is that it removes the obvious conflict of interests which is that media companies won't trash the government in order to be fed these scoops (and when I say "the government" I'm including the opposition; one's business model is to be fed by the Republicans (Fox) the other's will be to be fed by the Democrats (MSNBC))

maxerickson 10y ago

Again, what does compliance with your rule look like? How do journalists do journalism if they can't talk to key players in the stories they investigate?

rahrahrah 10y ago
Again, I don't know. Maybe the answer isn't that they can't talk altogether, but that regulations should be put in place for communications. For example, if a journalist wants to talk to a government official they can do so whenever the government officla say so, but the _full_ content of the conversation has to be made available to all media companies before any one of them can publish anything. The downside with this approach is that it removes the incentive of any one media company to put much resources into investigative journalism that gets it scoops from conversations with the government. The upside with this approach is that it removes the obvious conflict of interests which is that media companies won't trash the government in order to be fed these scoops (and when I say "the government" I'm including the opposition; one's business model is to be fed by the Republicans (Fox) the other's will be to be fed by the Democrats (MSNBC))