5 ms·

What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-info

by ColanR 7y ago

What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people. He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no one will believe.

gremlinsinc 7y ago
Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.
- ColanR 7y ago
  You make it sound as if the problem is a media that is disinterested in publishing real stories. Maybe we need new mainstream media organizations?
- animalnewbie 7y ago
  That's because TYT has a really smart lady host, you wouldn't find everyone reporting on it.
vojta_letal 7y ago
> is that an American spent his money how he liked Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more. > the American media is free enough to have reported on it Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values. > American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-americans-cant-tell-fact-from-opinion https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...
- whatthesmack 7y ago
  > Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values. If you can show evidence of this, I’d be interested. I’m pretty sure that /all/ media can be biased, and is. The BBC is no different or better than Fox News. They both share the news from their perspective.
- Bendingo 7y ago
  > Britain [...] state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values I wouldn't be too sure about that. Amusingly, in the search results below, BBC themselves report on their own secret links to the state security establishment. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+used+mi5+to+vet+staff https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+used+mi5+to+vet+staff
kace91 7y ago
> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets? I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well informed, mind you; I'm simply saying that it's pretty clear that the efforts to keep people misinformed are giant, becoming stronger by the day as technology advances and with no significant opposing force. I can't see how anyone can see that trend and think it's not going to have a harmful effect on society.
- ethbro 7y ago
  I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action. Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad. Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to funding voter media literacy and education, seems like a better approach. Give everyone the freedom to speak, but teach everyone to listen critically.
  - kace91 7y ago
    There are many issues with that. Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage. Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.

by ColanR 7y ago

gremlinsinc 7y ago

Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.

ColanR 7y ago
You make it sound as if the problem is a media that is disinterested in publishing real stories. Maybe we need new mainstream media organizations?
animalnewbie 7y ago
That's because TYT has a really smart lady host, you wouldn't find everyone reporting on it.

vojta_letal 7y ago

> is that an American spent his money how he liked Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more. > the American media is free enough to have reported on it Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values. > American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-americans-cant-tell-fact-from-opinion https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...

whatthesmack 7y ago
> Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values. If you can show evidence of this, I’d be interested. I’m pretty sure that /all/ media can be biased, and is. The BBC is no different or better than Fox News. They both share the news from their perspective.
Bendingo 7y ago
> Britain [...] state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values I wouldn't be too sure about that. Amusingly, in the search results below, BBC themselves report on their own secret links to the state security establishment. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+used+mi5+to+vet+staff https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+used+mi5+to+vet+staff

kace91 7y ago

> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets? I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well informed, mind you; I'm simply saying that it's pretty clear that the efforts to keep people misinformed are giant, becoming stronger by the day as technology advances and with no significant opposing force. I can't see how anyone can see that trend and think it's not going to have a harmful effect on society.

ethbro 7y ago
I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action. Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad. Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to funding voter media literacy and education, seems like a better approach. Give everyone the freedom to speak, but teach everyone to listen critically.
- kace91 7y ago
  There are many issues with that. Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage. Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.