2 ms·

> And if you can make money printing opinions, you don't need fact checkers anyways. That's what I said next, in other words. It's not even about their old bus

> And if you can make money printing opinions, you don't need fact checkers anyways. That's what I said next, in other words. It's not even about their old business model, it's that the new one nets them more money which is what their shareholders want. Shareholders always trump principles in strict neoliberal states. > that is the problem which Australia's laws are trying to fix....no doubt there is a better way, but I can't think of any.....can you? More state media in my opinion. But I'm more socialist than the US or Australia so mentioning this option is like cursing there. But here in West Europe we've always had those and even multiple for different ideological directions. The problem isn't really the news agencies themselves either. It's that they compete with social media that incite users to 'engage' them and they've come to actually like that. Which is why it worked in the first place. Europe is becoming a lot stricter on social media filtering algorithms and I think this is really hitting the root cause too. Though not directly (or timely) saving the news industry.

rhelz 3y ago
More state media is a good idea. If telling the truth is no longer profitable, then some kind of non-profit institution must step up, and the government is a good way to get funding. In the U.S., we have always had NPR as a publicly-funded alternative. It has become a lightning-rod, however, accused of being biased or being propaganda for the deep state, etc. And really, what would be a good proof that it is not biased? We don't really want to anoint a Minister of Truth. Who gets to say what is and what isn't biased?? Private competition is a way, and, when media companies competed on how credible they were, i.e. the most accurate news sources got the most money, it worked pretty good. But now they simply cannot compete on credibility, because its just too damn expensive to be accurate. What to do? I don't know, but I'm not willing to just dismiss Australia's laws out of hand as being axiomatically evil. At least they are trying to do something.
ambichook 3y ago
the ABC is ok, it at least provides a baseline for news reporting, although like any media it has its own blind spots. i personally am strongly opposed to forcing browsers and facebook to prop up independent media, though i dont have a better solution ready off the top of my head. my gut says that the solution that was chosen was a poor one and a better alternative should have been searched for
- rhelz 3y ago
  // my gut says that the solution that was chosen was a poor one and a better alternative should have been searched for // Well, like anything which gets through a democratically-elected legislative body, its a compromise, which is to say, it makes everybody equally uncomfortable. I'm sure that many alternatives were proposed and debated. Since nobody seems to have a better suggestion, we can view this as an experiment. Perhaps looking at the various consequences of this will suggest better ways.

rhelz 3y ago

More state media is a good idea. If telling the truth is no longer profitable, then some kind of non-profit institution must step up, and the government is a good way to get funding. In the U.S., we have always had NPR as a publicly-funded alternative. It has become a lightning-rod, however, accused of being biased or being propaganda for the deep state, etc. And really, what would be a good proof that it is not biased? We don't really want to anoint a Minister of Truth. Who gets to say what is and what isn't biased?? Private competition is a way, and, when media companies competed on how credible they were, i.e. the most accurate news sources got the most money, it worked pretty good. But now they simply cannot compete on credibility, because its just too damn expensive to be accurate. What to do? I don't know, but I'm not willing to just dismiss Australia's laws out of hand as being axiomatically evil. At least they are trying to do something.

ambichook 3y ago

the ABC is ok, it at least provides a baseline for news reporting, although like any media it has its own blind spots. i personally am strongly opposed to forcing browsers and facebook to prop up independent media, though i dont have a better solution ready off the top of my head. my gut says that the solution that was chosen was a poor one and a better alternative should have been searched for

rhelz 3y ago
// my gut says that the solution that was chosen was a poor one and a better alternative should have been searched for // Well, like anything which gets through a democratically-elected legislative body, its a compromise, which is to say, it makes everybody equally uncomfortable. I'm sure that many alternatives were proposed and debated. Since nobody seems to have a better suggestion, we can view this as an experiment. Perhaps looking at the various consequences of this will suggest better ways.