3 ms·

Sounds like our representation system is entirely broken, I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that.

by cgag 13y ago

davidcuddeback 13y ago
Because the news media's job is to be a government watchdog. "The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media's responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy" [1]. They haven't been doing their job for a long time. Edited to explain: Fixing the news media could be viewed as addressing an underlying cause for a dysfunctional representational system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government
- dllthomas 13y ago
  As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically.
  - davidcuddeback 13y ago
    > As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. If you look at it from a capitalistic perspective, I suppose you're right. I meant it from a civics perspective. For "job," try substituting "importance." You can't have a functioning democracy (or representational government) without an informed electorate. > Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically. You're right that the motives to sell papers (capitalistic goals) don't require them to fulfil their role as a watchdog (civics goals). I don't think these incentives were ever aligned, and I think that's what you meant by your last statement. I never said that it was any different in the past. Not being "substantially [different] now than historically" doesn't preclude something from being broken. I was just explaining to the parent commenter who said, "I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that."
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      All perfectly reasonable. I wholeheartedly agree we need means of being informed; I welcome proposals. I'm always skeptical about stopping the discussion at vague notions of "fix X".

Sounds like our representation system is entirely broken, I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that.

by cgag 13y ago

Sounds like our representation system is entirely broken, I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that.

Because the news media's job is to be a government watchdog. "The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media's responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy" [1]. They haven't been doing their job for a long time. Edited to explain: Fixing the news media could be viewed as addressing an underlying cause for a dysfunctional representational system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government

dllthomas 13y ago
As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically.
- davidcuddeback 13y ago
  > As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. If you look at it from a capitalistic perspective, I suppose you're right. I meant it from a civics perspective. For "job," try substituting "importance." You can't have a functioning democracy (or representational government) without an informed electorate. > Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically. You're right that the motives to sell papers (capitalistic goals) don't require them to fulfil their role as a watchdog (civics goals). I don't think these incentives were ever aligned, and I think that's what you meant by your last statement. I never said that it was any different in the past. Not being "substantially [different] now than historically" doesn't preclude something from being broken. I was just explaining to the parent commenter who said, "I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that."
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    All perfectly reasonable. I wholeheartedly agree we need means of being informed; I welcome proposals. I'm always skeptical about stopping the discussion at vague notions of "fix X".