5 ms·

Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not

Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that doesn't mean that there is no value to news, it means that maybe you should read from multiple sources, try to correct for known biases, ask critical questions etc. Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here. (Also, empirically, while trust in media and institutions has eroded, I don't believe that "most" people don't trust institutions. Maybe that's the case in the US, but certainly not everywhere.)

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.) As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  Democracy to me means giving the people participation in government. It doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that's why we have representative government and not (except in Switzerland) a system that works purely by plebiscites. Switzerland is a special case because the country is small and wealthy with a mostly well educated population and their democratic tradition is a very old one, but in many other cases, moving to a more direct form of democracy can have significant downsides, see e.g. the Brexit vote. And I'm not talking about suppressing anyone's opinion here, that would certainly not be right. It's more about how we as a society shouldn't overemphasise loud people on social media.
  - ebruchez 6y ago
    Switzerland doesn't "work purely by plebiscites". It's also a representative government. But it is true that there is more direct democracy, through so-called "initiatives" and "referendums". Those involve the population a few times a year. Note that California does something very similar, although the votes are less frequent.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      You're right, I was simplifying too much. I'm quite aware of the political system in Switzerland, since I grew up there, but I should have been more precise in my comment.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    The Swiss tradition of having lots of referendums isn't very old. Actually up until the 1970s it was hardly done, partly because the government had a habit of ignoring them and not implementing them properly. Around 50 years ago the press put pressure on politicians to get more serious about it, and the number of referendums has gone up a lot over time as a consequence. The Brexit vote is an excellent example of giving people participation in government. By the way, as you seem to be under the charming impression that members of Parliament are intellectually superior to the people who vote them in, you'll be pleased to know the UK now has a massive majority of MPs in favour of implementing Brexit properly. As their opinions are more valid than everyone else's, including yours, you presumably must now concede that Brexit is a superb idea.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      The problem with Brexit is not necessarily just whether or not Brexit had happened, but the fact that after the referendum, there was a supposed "popular mandate" of implementing Brexit, but nobody could say what exactly that mandate was since the people didn't vote on a particular proposal, but only on a vague idea. This led to the downfall of not one, but two governments, and it would have nearly triggered a constitutional crisis. By contrast, if there hadn't been a referendum, either the MPs would have agreed on a specific Brexit proposal, with everyone exactly knowing what they were getting into, or they wouldn't have been able to reach any consensus and would have remained in the EU (similar to how the Trump administration couldn't repeal Obamacare because nobody could agree on the alternative), both of which to me seem preferable than the mess which Brain had to endure for years after the referendum. Also, it's not necessarily just the fact that MPs are intellectually superior than the rest of the population (although I do think that, generally, the dumbest of the dumbest make it into parliaments somewhat more rarely), but the fact that parliamentarism and the associated procedures, laws and standards has some checks and balances built-in that pure mob rule (in the most extreme of versions) doesn't. (and as a final remark: I'm not generally opposed to any sort of plebiscite. I'm just saying that there are definitive drawbacks to direct democracy - you can see that even in Switzerland, where the system is generally much better thought out and established than in the case of the rushed Brexit referendum - that you need to prepare for, and you shouldn't just say "the will of the people counts" because there are huge pitfalls in trying to figure out what "the will of the people" even is (see: basically every populist government, and/or politician in world history, there are even examples of this dating as far back as the Roman Republic)).
PrinceKropotkin 6y ago
Regardless of whether or not "amplifying vox populi" is your preferred answer, it's the future of media. Why would I ever trust Wolf Blitzer over my favorite professor, or my favorite historian? Why would I look to the NyTimes when they don't cover the stories I consider important? Why would I trust the editorial staff at all given what I find in the opinion section? This is not to say that popular media outlets are lying or have an explicit agenda, it's just virtually impossible to find one that seems to reflect a world coherent with the one you live in.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  If the purpose of the media is just to reflect the world-view you already have, then there is no point to the media. Also, nobody says that you have to read the NY Times. There's, both in the US and internationally, a huge range of media of all sorts of political convictions, which you can read instead, although as said: the best possible option is to read from multiple sources with hopefully different takes on a particular topic (e.g. it's also sometimes good to read foreign media because they will inevitably have a different perspective). The point is more that there is value in editorialised content as opposed to random people screaming on social media. Plus, your favourite professor or historian is likely to have written columns for newspapers, too.
  - PrinceKropotkin 6y ago
    > If the purpose of the media is just to reflect the world-view you already have, then there is no point to the media If the media says it's raining outside when it's sunny, then I should just abandon media? If the news source doesn't cohere with your view of the world it's very difficult to distinguish truth from non-truth and outright propaganda. This is very basic Coherence Theory of Truth. If you have an alternative theory of truth, please elucidate!
thu2111 6y ago
The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.
- tt433 6y ago
  He also sells snake oil
  - sjg007 6y ago
    The default state should be to treat everything as suspect until proven otherwise. The problem is that goes against the central tenant of Americanism.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  I don't know Joe Rogan. And of course, there's always going to be exceptional bloggers, YT content producers, etc., same as there have always been independent journalists. This doesn't change the fact that, on average, John Doe on Facebook is not going to have very good insights into a topic.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    But John Doe in the Guardian is? What's the difference? Joe Rogan is a worldwide phenomenon larger than most TV channels. Around 200 million downloads a month, and he's basically a guy who interviews people on YouTube. Plenty of independents online with huge reach compared to older media.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.) As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.

Tainnor 6y ago
Democracy to me means giving the people participation in government. It doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that's why we have representative government and not (except in Switzerland) a system that works purely by plebiscites. Switzerland is a special case because the country is small and wealthy with a mostly well educated population and their democratic tradition is a very old one, but in many other cases, moving to a more direct form of democracy can have significant downsides, see e.g. the Brexit vote. And I'm not talking about suppressing anyone's opinion here, that would certainly not be right. It's more about how we as a society shouldn't overemphasise loud people on social media.
- ebruchez 6y ago
  Switzerland doesn't "work purely by plebiscites". It's also a representative government. But it is true that there is more direct democracy, through so-called "initiatives" and "referendums". Those involve the population a few times a year. Note that California does something very similar, although the votes are less frequent.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    You're right, I was simplifying too much. I'm quite aware of the political system in Switzerland, since I grew up there, but I should have been more precise in my comment.
- thu2111 6y ago
  The Swiss tradition of having lots of referendums isn't very old. Actually up until the 1970s it was hardly done, partly because the government had a habit of ignoring them and not implementing them properly. Around 50 years ago the press put pressure on politicians to get more serious about it, and the number of referendums has gone up a lot over time as a consequence. The Brexit vote is an excellent example of giving people participation in government. By the way, as you seem to be under the charming impression that members of Parliament are intellectually superior to the people who vote them in, you'll be pleased to know the UK now has a massive majority of MPs in favour of implementing Brexit properly. As their opinions are more valid than everyone else's, including yours, you presumably must now concede that Brexit is a superb idea.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    The problem with Brexit is not necessarily just whether or not Brexit had happened, but the fact that after the referendum, there was a supposed "popular mandate" of implementing Brexit, but nobody could say what exactly that mandate was since the people didn't vote on a particular proposal, but only on a vague idea. This led to the downfall of not one, but two governments, and it would have nearly triggered a constitutional crisis. By contrast, if there hadn't been a referendum, either the MPs would have agreed on a specific Brexit proposal, with everyone exactly knowing what they were getting into, or they wouldn't have been able to reach any consensus and would have remained in the EU (similar to how the Trump administration couldn't repeal Obamacare because nobody could agree on the alternative), both of which to me seem preferable than the mess which Brain had to endure for years after the referendum. Also, it's not necessarily just the fact that MPs are intellectually superior than the rest of the population (although I do think that, generally, the dumbest of the dumbest make it into parliaments somewhat more rarely), but the fact that parliamentarism and the associated procedures, laws and standards has some checks and balances built-in that pure mob rule (in the most extreme of versions) doesn't. (and as a final remark: I'm not generally opposed to any sort of plebiscite. I'm just saying that there are definitive drawbacks to direct democracy - you can see that even in Switzerland, where the system is generally much better thought out and established than in the case of the rushed Brexit referendum - that you need to prepare for, and you shouldn't just say "the will of the people counts" because there are huge pitfalls in trying to figure out what "the will of the people" even is (see: basically every populist government, and/or politician in world history, there are even examples of this dating as far back as the Roman Republic)).

PrinceKropotkin 6y ago

Regardless of whether or not "amplifying vox populi" is your preferred answer, it's the future of media. Why would I ever trust Wolf Blitzer over my favorite professor, or my favorite historian? Why would I look to the NyTimes when they don't cover the stories I consider important? Why would I trust the editorial staff at all given what I find in the opinion section? This is not to say that popular media outlets are lying or have an explicit agenda, it's just virtually impossible to find one that seems to reflect a world coherent with the one you live in.

Tainnor 6y ago
If the purpose of the media is just to reflect the world-view you already have, then there is no point to the media. Also, nobody says that you have to read the NY Times. There's, both in the US and internationally, a huge range of media of all sorts of political convictions, which you can read instead, although as said: the best possible option is to read from multiple sources with hopefully different takes on a particular topic (e.g. it's also sometimes good to read foreign media because they will inevitably have a different perspective). The point is more that there is value in editorialised content as opposed to random people screaming on social media. Plus, your favourite professor or historian is likely to have written columns for newspapers, too.
- PrinceKropotkin 6y ago
  > If the purpose of the media is just to reflect the world-view you already have, then there is no point to the media If the media says it's raining outside when it's sunny, then I should just abandon media? If the news source doesn't cohere with your view of the world it's very difficult to distinguish truth from non-truth and outright propaganda. This is very basic Coherence Theory of Truth. If you have an alternative theory of truth, please elucidate!

thu2111 6y ago

The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.

tt433 6y ago
He also sells snake oil
- sjg007 6y ago
  The default state should be to treat everything as suspect until proven otherwise. The problem is that goes against the central tenant of Americanism.
Tainnor 6y ago
I don't know Joe Rogan. And of course, there's always going to be exceptional bloggers, YT content producers, etc., same as there have always been independent journalists. This doesn't change the fact that, on average, John Doe on Facebook is not going to have very good insights into a topic.
- thu2111 6y ago
  But John Doe in the Guardian is? What's the difference? Joe Rogan is a worldwide phenomenon larger than most TV channels. Around 200 million downloads a month, and he's basically a guy who interviews people on YouTube. Plenty of independents online with huge reach compared to older media.