3 ms·
Nationalizing the most watched news sources leads to horrible political consequences. Politicians quickly figure out that whomever gets more airtime wins and el
by dzink 4y ago
Nationalizing the most watched news sources leads to horrible political consequences. Politicians quickly figure out that whomever gets more airtime wins and elections so the news becomes a visual diary of the activities of whoever is in power + whomever owns non-government media. In Eastern Europe the mafia bought most media in small countries, and now they cannot be dislodged.
- MBCook 4y agoThat’s the argument to kill live C-SPAN coverage. We know politicians play to the cameras constantly. It’s obvious. Politicians have made their entire careers by becoming famous for their speeches on the floor. Do they really make a lot of those ridiculous charts and pictures for other politicians? I remember hearing from reporters and maybe even ex-representatives that things changed once the cameras came in. Things got worse. You couldn’t look weak by talking to/compromising with the other side. Bombast worked. It made polarization worse. It wasn’t a big club anymore, it was “us” and “them”. It won’t fix the rest of the media, but maybe C-SPAN is a failed experiment. The observer effect took over and changed the outcome.
- WalterBright 4y agoIn Seattle it's even worse. There's a law that says that no discussion among city councilmembers can take place in private. So, all discussion is in the council chamber, with cameras recording it. You can guess where that leads. Nothing but grandstanding to the cameras. No horse-trading. No compromise. It's awful.