3 ms·
If money in media were having an immediate and crippling effect on democracy then it would have already. The history of American media is a history of very ric
by KirinDave 10y ago
If money in media were having an immediate and crippling effect on democracy then it would have already.
The history of American media is a history of very rich people growing, owning and acquiring media. They've always had this influence.
And yes it may be sub-optimal, but it is not new and therefore difficult to directly attribute recent changes to. In fact, it's somewhat arguable that the current predicament we find ourselves in is the result of making media less expensive to disseminate, not the opposite.
Our society and biology are poorly trained to reject incorrect information. So when small unethical actors begin to proliferate doing quick profit cycles on sympathetic populations, we see a lot of uptake for those ideas.
Want a great example that won't pick a big 2016 political fight? PETA. Despite being a rather ineffective activist group with a large incoherent message, they can inexpensively produce tons of populist media that helps keep them in people's minds and associate them (however wrongly) with helping animals.
- cmdrfred 10y ago>If money in media were having an immediate and crippling effect on democracy then it would have already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst
- KirinDave 10y agoRiiight, but honest question: do we think that constitutes a crippling of democracy? The Hearst family is one I'm familiar with and referring to above.
- cmdrfred 10y agoWhat is a democracy but the choices of an informed electorate? If that electorate is misinformed, then you don't have one.
- KirinDave 10y agoI don't know what "an informed electorate" means. Even "educated" people here debate climate science with absolutely ridiculous claims. This is as good as it gets. That's the painful truth I've been trying to swallow.
- KirinDave 10y agoI don't know what "an informed electorate" means. Even "educated" people here debate climate science with absolutely ridiculous claims. This is as good as it gets. That's the painful truth I've been trying to swallow.
- dominotw 10y ago> If money in media were having an immediate and crippling effect on democracy then it would have already. 'tell the press' emails are not crippling enough? http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign...
- cafard 10y ago"Poll after poll showed that he would have beaten Trump in the general election by wide margins." Poll after poll, taken after Sanders quit, showed Clinton beating Trump by wide margins.
- KirinDave 10y agoIt's curious how blithely we ignore the systemic bias argument when people are talking about the might-have-beens around Sanders.
- basch 10y agowhere do 99.9% of people get the information they use to make an educated vote? where do people source policy, position, and historical information from?
- richmarr 10y ago> where do 99.9% of people get the information they use to make an educated vote? People use information to make an educated vote? I missed that memo
- gremlinsinc 10y agoMedia's always been controlled by certain interests, yes -- but one of the worst things ever was when Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine - it was the beginning of the end of true journalism -- that required equal time for ALL sides of an argument. Now it's all opinion pieces and slanted news is now the norm.
- dagw 10y agothat required equal time for ALL sides of an argument. How would that make things better? Not all sides deserve equal time, nor is there any requirement to present the 'other' side in a fair and accurate light. Having clearly stated up front biases is far better than biases hidden behind a veneer of faked impartiality and careful stage managed 'fairness'.