CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[XponentialChaos]

Hey, if you find out how to delete your FB account, please relay. I found it to be a non-option, and pretty sure it's still the same.

Really? I know several people who deleted theirs.

I just looked it up. I was able to follow the instructions and find the delete option. I didn't delete mine, but it's definitely there.

 

[BlackSand]

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.

The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...

.

 

[dblack]

What complaints?

That they can't own the vagina of every woman?
That they can't legally murder any LGBTQ? person they may meet in the street?
That murdering Black men is not treated like a parking ticket?
That losing an election means you don't get to hold that office?

EXACTLY what grievances am I to give credence to?

In the article I linked to, and the quote.

Mac1958 - this is why I don't think Democrats will seek unity. They don't want it.

 

[ClaireH]

This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! haha

Of course AI "fact checking" will only be as good as the clean learning process is, and even with great effort to keep out "trash info" quite the challenge. One thing about machines is they don't have the "human loyalty factor to a cause" going on, unless of course its been programmed by a corrupt programmer. Self-taught machines can wind up with subversive, biased information that's harder to catch. It's a real make it or break it scenario with being 100% sure its clean learning. From what I've read, that's the trickiest part and takes the longest time. The public will decide if it's a hit or miss, and some outlets won't even sign on for their own reasons. It will be an interesting development to say the least.

 

[Leo123]

Journalists, as with other professions, should be mandated to carry a license attesting to their objectivity, due diligence and certified continuing education. Their political affiliations should be a matter of record and broadcast with every report they publish.

 

[Leo123]

Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! haha

Of course AI "fact checking" will only be as good as the clean learning process is, and even with great effort to keep out "trash info" quite the challenge. One thing about machines is they don't have the "human loyalty factor to a cause" going on, unless of course its been programmed by a corrupt programmer. Self-taught machines can wind up with subversive, biased information that's harder to catch. It's a real make it or break it scenario with being 100% sure its clean learning. From what I've read, that's the trickiest part and takes the longest time. The public will decide if it's a hit or miss, and some outlets won't even sign on for their own reasons. It will be an interesting development to say the least.

Anyone or any machine calling themselves a 'Fact Checker' is a direct insult to intelligent people. We all have access to the same information, relying on any 'fact checker' is lazy, ignorant and foolish.

 

[ClaireH]

Within the next few years, give or take a couple, the global AI race will expand significantly and continue to enter various markets. Developers will soon be offering up "fact checkers" and possibly make their offers to mainstream news outlets. I would love to see their faces when asked if they'd like to have a true fact checker on a daily basis-during their programs! haha

Of course AI "fact checking" will only be as good as the clean learning process is, and even with great effort to keep out "trash info" quite the challenge. One thing about machines is they don't have the "human loyalty factor to a cause" going on, unless of course its been programmed by a corrupt programmer. Self-taught machines can wind up with subversive, biased information that's harder to catch. It's a real make it or break it scenario with being 100% sure its clean learning. From what I've read, that's the trickiest part and takes the longest time. The public will decide if it's a hit or miss, and some outlets won't even sign on for their own reasons. It will be an interesting development to say the least.

Anyone or any machine calling themselves a 'Fact Checker' is a direct insult to intelligent people. We all have access to the same information, relying on any 'fact checker' is lazy, ignorant and foolish.

I do not condone any sign of laziness...ignorance is a temporary condition and many recover, and foolish can be fun within limits. I am pretty sure they won't be called fact checkers lol I was just using that expression

 

[Leo123]

I do not condone any sign of laziness...ignorance is a temporary condition and many recover, and foolish can be fun within limits. I am pretty sure they won't be called fact checkers lol I was just using that expression

I wasn't projecting that on you. I was just commenting on fact checkers which, IMO, are a bunch of arrogant, bastards.

 

[Mac1958]

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.

The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...

.

Yeah, that's working out great.

 

[Mac1958]

What complaints?

That they can't own the vagina of every woman?
That they can't legally murder any LGBTQ? person they may meet in the street?
That murdering Black men is not treated like a parking ticket?
That losing an election means you don't get to hold that office?

EXACTLY what grievances am I to give credence to?

In the article I linked to, and the quote.

Mac1958 - this is why I don't think Democrats will seek unity. They don't want it.

Neither end wants unity. They want to "beat" the other.

The rest of us are quite ready for it.

 

[BlackSand]

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.

The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...

.

Yeah, that's working out great.

Well, personally, I think they suck ... So I don't support the ones that suck so bad.

I wouldn't go to a restaurant that burned the food all night.
I wouldn't hire a house painter that only uses pink paint.

I'm sorry you want to try and fix or punish the people, or networks, that you think are lying to you on purpose, and for political reasons.
I have no use for them, and no obligation to correct their corrupt way of doing business.

Now if you want to comment on how your 'self-regulating body' suggestion sucks ...
Because anyone can, is supposed to self-regulate anyway ...
And you want to turn self-regulation into external oversight, for the sake of silencing opposing views ...
Well, I don't think you know what Freedom of the Press means ...

.

 

[Mac1958]

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.

The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...

.

Yeah, that's working out great.

Well, personally, I think they suck ... So I don't support the ones that suck so bad.

I wouldn't go to a restaurant that burned the food all night.
I wouldn't hire a house painter that only uses pink paint.

I'm sorry you want to try and fix or punish the people, or networks, that you think are lying to you on purpose, and for political reasons.
I have no use for them, and no obligation to correct their corrupt way of doing business.

Now if you want to comment on how your 'self-regulating body' suggestion sucks ...
Because anyone can, is supposed to self-regulate anyway ...
And you want to turn self-regulation into external oversight, for the sake of silencing opposing views ...
Well, I don't think you know what Freedom of the Press means ...

.

You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.

There was a time in America that an idea could be tossed out, and then collaboration and innovation would form it into something new.

Obviously, we're no longer capable of that in America. But then, I wasn't expecting miracles here.

 

[BlackSand]

You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.

There was a time in America that an idea could be tossed out, and then collaboration and innovation would form it into something new.

Obviously, we're no longer capable of that in America. But then, I wasn't expecting miracles here.

I didn't make assumptions about anything.

I corrected your silly idea that a regulatory body would be required to self-regulate ...
That collaboration is a tool for finding truth ...
And that Innovation can improve a corrupt product that is knowingly corrupt in manufacture.

You aren't expecting a miracle as much as you are desiring a regulated compliance to your idiocy.
Oh ... America is capable, and doing its best to get exactly where you want it.

.

 

[Mac1958]

You're making assumptions about what such a body would be able to do. I never offered specifics because it's just a germ of an idea.

There was a time in America that an idea could be tossed out, and then collaboration and innovation would form it into something new.

Obviously, we're no longer capable of that in America. But then, I wasn't expecting miracles here.

I didn't make assumptions about anything.

I corrected your silly idea that a regulatory body would be required to self-regulate ...
Collaboration is a tool for finding truth ...
Innovation can improve a corrupt product that is knowingly corrupt in manufacture.

You aren't expecting a miracle as much as you are desiring a regulated compliance to your idiocy.
Oh ... America is capable, and doing its best to get exactly where you want it.

.

Okay, got it.

 

[Mac-7]

The logic says that you're making a comparison to a company that was broken up by the Supreme Court and encouraged by the President at the time.

The company was broken up by the Roosevelt Administration

the court ruled that what the government did was legal

 

[Mac-7]

Haha, sorry about the bristling. I sincerely hope that you are able to find a competitor that you are happy with.

I believe in giving liberals their due

many of them are highly intelligent

Too bad that being a little touched in the head is often a side affect of creativity

Many creative people are liberal but also warped and often very unhappy in their personal lives

They slave away in a small cubicle in Palo Alto and live in a lonely world of their own

which gives them plenty of time to spend in virtual reality

 

[Mac-7]

The idea that I offered in the OP tries to address it by creating a body that might (theoretically) return and enforce standards and keep reality & fiction/conspiracy separated.

IAW, Mac1958 sitting in his star chamber telling the rest of us what to think

that sounds like a plan to me

where do I sign up for reprogramming?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

You don't need to appoint a body to self-regulate.
You are not talking about people choosing to self-regulate ... You are discussing creating/appointing a body to regulate others.

The media has the ability to self-regulate ... It's called editors or even producers, and they aren't worth a shit ...

.

Not to mention the fact that it is the corrupt mainstream media that is obviously the problem, here, yet he's only wanting to go after anything that ISN'T the mainstream media. Rather that reforming the mainstream media, he simply wants to entrench it even further by creating a body that calls anything a lie that does not conform to the mainstream narrative.

It is very Orwellian.

 

[JoeB131]

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Here's the solution. News is a product. Like any product, we need to be responsible consumers.

the product is packaged in such a way to appeal to key audiences. Fox has it's key audience. MSNBC has it's audience. PBS doesn't have an audience, but it gets a government subsidy.

The problem isn't that the media isn't doing it's job, it's that we live in a world when any person in their mother's basement can call himself a journalist, spread utter nonsense about Election Fraud, Covid-19 or whether there is a secret cabal of pedophile cannibals behind our government. It used to be that reputable news outlets were hemmed in by liable and slander, which is why you see phrases like "Alleged killer" and other qualifications on the news.

The Crazy in Mom's Basement doing his expose on how Lizard People from Zeta Reticuli are secretly controlling our government through the Trilateral Commission has no such boundaries.

 

[JoeB131]

Not to mention the fact that it is the corrupt mainstream media that is obviously the problem, here, yet he's only wanting to go after anything that ISN'T the mainstream media. Rather that reforming the mainstream media, he simply wants to entrench it even further by creating a body that calls anything a lie that does not conform to the mainstream narrative.

It is very Orwellian.

The mainstream media isn't the problem. Not even Fox News, which almost acts like a responsible news source.

The problem- again- is us as consumers of news. We go to the outlets that reinforce our world views. We don't want out sweet little world to be challenged.

So Trump can spout utter nonsense about election fraud, which I don't think he even believes at this point, and the "non-mainstream news" just gobbles that stuff up, not because they believe it, but because they make money from clicks and likes.

And when social media tries to deplatform the bad actors like Alex Jones or Trump himself, you get people screaming about "Free Speech.