4 ms·

The big crisis for western democracy is mass disinformation. Democracy only works if we all agree on what the facts on the ground are. In the US we used to have

by guelo 7y ago

The big crisis for western democracy is mass disinformation. Democracy only works if we all agree on what the facts on the ground are. In the US we used to have the FCC Fairness Doctrine which prevented broadcasters from becoming straight propaganda outlets. Reagan's killing of the Fairness Doctrine led directly to the rise of Rush Limbaugh, AM talk radio, Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc. They have been able to create an alternate universe where the facts on the ground are completely different then the so-called mainstream (which is misnamed since the alternate universe is now as big as the "mainstream" one). We need some form of Fairness Doctrine updated for the internet age. Otherwise things will only get worse and the democracy experiment will fail in probably catastrophic ways.

FooBarWidget 7y ago
While disinformation is one issue, I don't think it is the only one. I don't even know whether it is the biggest one. I worry about bubbles and echo chambers. Nowadays people don't watch much tv anymore. The media that they do consume, suggest content that align with their exiisting views. Unlike tv where you get a range of different views. Whats more, people actually like this! This is why those media are so successful. I worry about the fact that nobody is interested in actually listening to opposing views. People just shout at each other and reaffirm their existing beliefs. All this are separate issues from fake news.
- bitcrusher 7y ago
  Unfortunately, you've got it backwards. The propaganda has exacerbated the division, almost in direct alignment with the removal of the fairness doctrine. All of the things you're describing are a consequence of growing up thinking that 'opposing views' are somehow validated and the problem is that people aren't listening. It's true, they aren't listening to each other; But few people are saying anything worth listening to ( for example, having critical thoughts about ANY subject that isn't a regurgitation of talking points they heard/read/saw from their bubble ). The propaganda has been successful enough that it's created a cultural viewpoint that starts with the premise that there ARE sides and that the other side won't listen so they're hopeless.
  - FooBarWidget 7y ago
    So let me get this straight. Things like Twitter flame wars and Reddit echo chambers, are the result of media companies creating divisiveness, because that generates anger and controversy and thus higher engagement. This is the ‘cultural viewpoint that there IS a side and that the other side won’t listen’ that you speak of?
    - bitcrusher 7y ago
      You're being purposely obsequious, I think. Let's try this: If you take a LONG view ( more than the last 15 years ) you would see that prior to the fairness doctrine being removed, we generally weren't 'entertained' by media. That removal, rise of cable news and radio "shows" and the one issue wedge strategy of the Neo-con/Conservative movements created a socialization atmosphere for the last 30 years which advocates for a growing anger towards "mainstream" media. This first obvious signs of this were the obstructionists of the mid-90s, with Newt Gingrich leading the charge... This gave rise to the Tea Party, where obstructionism and venomous anger becomes the party line, not just an also ran belief. Simultaneous, the liberals are getting soundly beaten by not only a more directed and better orchestrated ground game but by tactics that aren't 'fair' by conventional standards. These events give rise to the seeds of 'falternative facts propaganda', which reframes everything as a personal attack and creates the 'drain the swamp narratives'. However, there's still a communication gap as traditional print media won't engage, and radio programming is notoriously hard to propagate. In comes the mainstream internet, starts connecting like minded folks from disparate areas who start grouping together. Twitter, Facebook, et. al start gaining in popularity, basing their entire business model on fueling the divisiveness playbook ( outrage engagement ), originated WAY WAY back when the fairness doctrine was eliminated. Media companies were also starting to getting in on the action, first by way of 'conservative' talking heads using shock-jock techniques pandering to their audience, creating a feedback loop. Liberals, after a few years of this, start seeing that they're 'losing' the culture war and fight back, emulating the tactics of their perceived opposition. Sprinkle some foreign involvement to amplify, season liberally with money and boom: 2019. Anyway, I could go on, but I think you're not actually interested in any of this, but instead are trying to Trojan horse some nonsensical ideas about causation under the guise of intellectual exchange ( see: "China gets a bad wrap" as an example ). Thanks for the chat though, I wish you the best.

by guelo 7y ago

FooBarWidget 7y ago

While disinformation is one issue, I don't think it is the only one. I don't even know whether it is the biggest one. I worry about bubbles and echo chambers. Nowadays people don't watch much tv anymore. The media that they do consume, suggest content that align with their exiisting views. Unlike tv where you get a range of different views. Whats more, people actually like this! This is why those media are so successful. I worry about the fact that nobody is interested in actually listening to opposing views. People just shout at each other and reaffirm their existing beliefs. All this are separate issues from fake news.

bitcrusher 7y ago
Unfortunately, you've got it backwards. The propaganda has exacerbated the division, almost in direct alignment with the removal of the fairness doctrine. All of the things you're describing are a consequence of growing up thinking that 'opposing views' are somehow validated and the problem is that people aren't listening. It's true, they aren't listening to each other; But few people are saying anything worth listening to ( for example, having critical thoughts about ANY subject that isn't a regurgitation of talking points they heard/read/saw from their bubble ). The propaganda has been successful enough that it's created a cultural viewpoint that starts with the premise that there ARE sides and that the other side won't listen so they're hopeless.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  So let me get this straight. Things like Twitter flame wars and Reddit echo chambers, are the result of media companies creating divisiveness, because that generates anger and controversy and thus higher engagement. This is the ‘cultural viewpoint that there IS a side and that the other side won’t listen’ that you speak of?
  - bitcrusher 7y ago
    You're being purposely obsequious, I think. Let's try this: If you take a LONG view ( more than the last 15 years ) you would see that prior to the fairness doctrine being removed, we generally weren't 'entertained' by media. That removal, rise of cable news and radio "shows" and the one issue wedge strategy of the Neo-con/Conservative movements created a socialization atmosphere for the last 30 years which advocates for a growing anger towards "mainstream" media. This first obvious signs of this were the obstructionists of the mid-90s, with Newt Gingrich leading the charge... This gave rise to the Tea Party, where obstructionism and venomous anger becomes the party line, not just an also ran belief. Simultaneous, the liberals are getting soundly beaten by not only a more directed and better orchestrated ground game but by tactics that aren't 'fair' by conventional standards. These events give rise to the seeds of 'falternative facts propaganda', which reframes everything as a personal attack and creates the 'drain the swamp narratives'. However, there's still a communication gap as traditional print media won't engage, and radio programming is notoriously hard to propagate. In comes the mainstream internet, starts connecting like minded folks from disparate areas who start grouping together. Twitter, Facebook, et. al start gaining in popularity, basing their entire business model on fueling the divisiveness playbook ( outrage engagement ), originated WAY WAY back when the fairness doctrine was eliminated. Media companies were also starting to getting in on the action, first by way of 'conservative' talking heads using shock-jock techniques pandering to their audience, creating a feedback loop. Liberals, after a few years of this, start seeing that they're 'losing' the culture war and fight back, emulating the tactics of their perceived opposition. Sprinkle some foreign involvement to amplify, season liberally with money and boom: 2019. Anyway, I could go on, but I think you're not actually interested in any of this, but instead are trying to Trojan horse some nonsensical ideas about causation under the guise of intellectual exchange ( see: "China gets a bad wrap" as an example ). Thanks for the chat though, I wish you the best.