4 ms·

Implicit in your comment is the idea that mainstream media needs to survive. The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait ta

Implicit in your comment is the idea that mainstream media needs to survive. The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.

ben_w 6y ago
I believe that some kind of free investigative press, one which the electorate pays attention to, is a requisite for anything that can be reasonably called a democracy. I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it. That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I think what is needed is a change of perspective around news / media. IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism. The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
- baddox 6y ago
  I won't pretend to be an expert or even necessarily a proponent, but it's worth nothing that there are public broadcasting agencies that supposedly are independent of government other than being legally bound to certain journalistic standards.
munificent 6y ago
In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. Choosing morals simply means you'll be outcompeted and go out of business. > I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under. I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process. I agree with you that good journalists are essential to society 100%. I also think that the current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. We would be better off as a society if CNN and Fox News dissolved tomorrow. > In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them. In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
  - munificent 6y ago
    > What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? Good point. Yes, we are not quite living in a libertarian paradise/hellhole of pure capitalism yet. :) Even there, though, non-profits do compete for donor dollars and the competitive pressure is not always well-aligned with the altruistic goals of the organization. > There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them. I agree, but I hesitate to rely entirely on the largesse of those with spare cash to support journalism. Journalism is a vital function for democracy, and democracy should support all of a nations' people, not just the views of those with extra money. There are, of course, many wealthy people willing to support journalism that protects the poor too, but I worry as always about bias. > In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed. I have some but limited faith that "all bugs are shallow" applies to investigative journalism. Yes, independent journalists can dig up and find a lot of stuff. But there's really something to be said for the doors that get opened when a journalist from a well-regarded important publication knocks on them. When the Washington Post asks a politician a hard question, they feel some pressure to answer. When J. Random Youtuber does, not so much.

ben_w 6y ago

I believe that some kind of free investigative press, one which the electorate pays attention to, is a requisite for anything that can be reasonably called a democracy. I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it. That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.

dahfizz 6y ago
I think what is needed is a change of perspective around news / media. IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism. The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
baddox 6y ago
I won't pretend to be an expert or even necessarily a proponent, but it's worth nothing that there are public broadcasting agencies that supposedly are independent of government other than being legally bound to certain journalistic standards.

munificent 6y ago

In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. Choosing morals simply means you'll be outcompeted and go out of business. > I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under. I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.

dahfizz 6y ago
> Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process. I agree with you that good journalists are essential to society 100%. I also think that the current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. We would be better off as a society if CNN and Fox News dissolved tomorrow. > In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them. In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
- munificent 6y ago
  > What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? Good point. Yes, we are not quite living in a libertarian paradise/hellhole of pure capitalism yet. :) Even there, though, non-profits do compete for donor dollars and the competitive pressure is not always well-aligned with the altruistic goals of the organization. > There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them. I agree, but I hesitate to rely entirely on the largesse of those with spare cash to support journalism. Journalism is a vital function for democracy, and democracy should support all of a nations' people, not just the views of those with extra money. There are, of course, many wealthy people willing to support journalism that protects the poor too, but I worry as always about bias. > In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed. I have some but limited faith that "all bugs are shallow" applies to investigative journalism. Yes, independent journalists can dig up and find a lot of stuff. But there's really something to be said for the doors that get opened when a journalist from a well-regarded important publication knocks on them. When the Washington Post asks a politician a hard question, they feel some pressure to answer. When J. Random Youtuber does, not so much.