CDZ Information Breakdown

[Elvis Obama]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I get my information from a variety of places. CNN, MSNBC, BBC, PBS, Yahoo News, and other places on the internet.

And, if a story doesn't seem to be adding up equally on all sites, or if one site has newer or different information, I like to verify the different or new information with other places.

Simply accepting what one news site says as gospel all the time is stupid in my opinion. Why? Simple..............it's not the 70's anymore, and almost everyone has cable and internet, and can verify the information that they get with a multitude of sources.

Cross check and cross reference to make sure it's true.

And, after seeing the way that CNN and FOX screwed up the reporting on both the Boston Marathon bombing, as well as the SCOTUS decision on the ACA, it pays to wait a little bit to let the information settle down and get verified reports.

We now have more places to get news, which on one hand is good, because you can get more people to verify it, but it can also be bad, because some places will tout as gospel their own slanted agenda.

But, you've gotta have a functioning brain, as well as the will to check things out for yourself, not swallow them whole from somewhere else.

 

[Holos]

Empiricism.

100% trusted as raw information.

The discernment that comes from what is qualified information to be further payed attention to comes with the processing of the 100% influx of raw information, which in turn may increase or decrease the percentage of information received in benefit of sense maintanence.

The changing rate of information reception does not depend on the senses anymore at the processing point, but on the environment with its particular objects to have the senses directed at singularly or simultaneously in relation to the efficiency of the incoming raw information being processed by natural selection of the individual.

That is why the first ammendment took the position of first. The Constitution was adopted before all States were included in the Federation. Three years later and a little bit more, the ten first ammendments were added to the governing conduct, exactly because the ease of such an established success would require some pressure ("the press") from the future proposing States, as the first States with the next would want unification to assure prosperity and not enforce any innapropriate conquest.

I would disagree there is such thing as illegitemate information and also that biased information should be rejected. Information rejection is useful, however, to more carefully regulate the inflow of raw information and information processing for further legitimate qualification.

If we were to blame anyone it would be whoever makes any information to be illegitimate or who rejects any biased information. However, the very own definition of blaming would also be to reject biased information, so we instead reject blaming altogether for greater efficiency in the qualification of information processed and distributed.

I think the first question was answered above. The last question I would have the answer to be solitary focus to turn any apparent bothersome chaos in the media into legitimate intellectual property. This is why information rejection can be useful, as the media might often be chaotically overwhelming when engaged with to achieve intellectuality.

 

[320 Years of History]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

 

[FA_Q2]

I get my info from all over the place. Most of that is though the internet - the one place where virtually every source of information comes together. Mostly from 'reputable' news sources. Also from the radio from various places.

I do not trust them at all either. I think that trusting any source is rather silly. Sure, most of them do not overtly lie but that does not make them trustworthy at all. A single story from one source rarely is the same story from another. Usually the differences are very stark. When listening, reading or watching a news source I usually look for the bullshit before anything else - it is almost always there and usually in the form of 'interpreting' the raw data for you. i could use a lot less interpreting and a lot more actual facts.

I look for peer reviewed studies and governmental source data as well. This is the only data that I can say I trust.

 

[Elvis Obama]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

 

[FA_Q2]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

 

[Elvis Obama]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

And how would you 'address' that problem?

 

[Elvis Obama]

1- Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?
2- Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

People love to toss around terms like "mainstream media" and "lamestream media". When you question which organizations qualify for these terms and which ones do not, you'll never get the same opinion from any two people. There have always been legit and illegitimate sources of information, and it's always been up to the individual to evaluate these sources and assign their own judgments as to how much you will accept as true and how much you will reject as biased or misinformed.

If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

And how would you 'address' that problem?

By getting a complete analysis of the problem(s). Try to assess the degree to which commercial interests, political partisanship, anti-intellectualism, etc, play a role in the problem. Then figure out a reasonable strategy to deal with each of those problems.

Here's the kind of thing I'm hearing nowadays:
"I don't believe nothin' that those lamestreamers tell me, but I feel I can trust Mr. Trump to tell it like it is, with no PC bull! When them lamestreamers tell me he's wrong, it just make me even more sure that he's right."

One of the most trusted news organizations is PBS. Perhaps we need more news organizations which are protected from the news-for-profit model. Restoring (or creating) public trust in journalism by emphasizing credibility is probably a good idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

Question #1: Where do you get your information from, and how much do you trust it?

• From where do I get my information?

The answer depends one what role the information plays in my process of discovering and analyzing the information that comes my way.

• Information that makes me aware of an issue or event for the first time, or that inspires me to greater curiosity about a matter --> Just about anywhere. I'm not choosy about from where initial exposure or inspiration comes. Sometimes I come by new information by seeking it. Other times it falls into my lap though little or no deliberate effort on my part.
• Information that consists of facts and details about the nature, timing and extent of things, events and people(s) and their relationship to other things, events or people(s):
  • Very high level just to get a general picture of things --> various news and nonfiction media outlets. This is where I look when something I've come by inspires me to ask, "Can that possibly be true? And if so, what is the likelihood it is?" I use these sources when I just want to have a rough sense of what is likely the answer for my own sake in order to be prepared if someone brings up a given topic in which I at least have a passing interest.
  • When I care enough about an issue to bring it up in conversation with others --> Academic, peer reviewed books and journals; sometimes websites/blogs and highly focused magazines, provided they give references that I can examine and that upon doing so find them equally rigorous in their treatment of the subject matter.
  • When it's something about which I've been invited to give a presentation --> A mix of academic peer reviewed journals, original documents, government publications, first hand experimentation and first hand observations for which, when appropriate/needed, I've obtained the right to share/disclose the nature of my observations and the circumstances that gave rise to them. Which I use when depends on the situation.
• Information that gives me insights about what I may have overlooked and/or improperly assigned too much or too little weight --> editorial essays, Internet forums, comedian's monologues, and/or conversations with people whom I know to be very knowledgeable on a topic.

If you are asking from what "mainstream" media sources I most often get high level information, they are:

• PBS Newshour
• CNN
• The Atlantic
• The Economist
• Barron's
• Wall St. Journal
• Financial Times
• Washington Post
• New York Times
• The Guardian
• The BBC
• Kiplinger's
• International Herald Tribune (until it shut down -- LOL)
• Times of India (when I'm going to India, but otherwise about once a month or so)
• Daily Mail

• Do I trust the sources I've noted above?

Generally, yes. The more the publication (or show) provides both sides of an issue, disclose what countervailing facts they tried to get but could not, the more they discuss their methodology and cite specific sources for the information, the more I trust them. Obviously, scholarly journals are highly trustworthy, IMO, because they fully present the full details of their methods and my own academic background (masters degree) is sufficient for me to tell whether their methods "hold water" or not.

Of course, even though I can come to a basic conclusion re: a researcher's methodology, I know damn well that on the subject matter itself (not the research methodology), I'm in no position to say something akin to say "I think 'so and so' is full of it," when I know full and well that person has spent their life studying a topic at insane levels of detail and scope and I have not. At some point I have to accept that I am not an expert on a given topic and thus I have to accept what legitimate experts who've published objective studies on a matter actually say/publish. I realize that those experts may at times not like the results they obtained, but therein lies the difference between what is so and what one would prefer be so. Even experts are sometimes subject to that foible of human nature, but I know experts aren't going to publish a peer reviewed article that contains material misstatements and conclusions that overstep the results they obtained. Who would and why would they risk their career like that?​

Question #2: Why was freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment, and have the press fulfilled their role within our government of, by and for the people?

• The first part of the question has been addressed more than adequately by scores of writers. I won't take up this topic, for I have nothing new to add that has not already been very well said, supported and established.
  • The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press: A Revised Approach to the Marketplace of Ideas Concept
    
  • The Fourth Estate
  • Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Thought and Action...A Report from a Summit on Freedom of the Press in the Twenty-First Century, University of Oregon, April 12, 2013
    
  • Acts of Journalism Defining Press Freedom in the Digital Age
    
  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights Series)
    
  • Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case
• I think the answer is yes, without question. In my mind, "the press" that we want to have be free is the printing press (and its modern equivalents). To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any restrictions on what can be published and expressed by individuals who are of a mind to express their ideas and findings.
  
  Moreover, with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer practical limits (e.g., one doesn't need to have room for one more book, one need not go to a bookstore, etc.) on Americans' access to that information. Indeed, we are that point of there being so much information handily available that one has to be more focused in choosing which of it one will consume beyond confirming whether the information is factually true.
  
  What's very different today than it was in all prior ages is that the great wealth of information and "information" that is available to everyone these days makes it essential that one, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Seeing as anyone can have a platform for saying literally anything, it's easy to come by self-affirming, self aggrandizing or just nice to hear information, and that stuff is really enticing to trust, believe and accept.
  
  As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about....

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

And how would you 'address' that problem?

By getting a complete analysis of the problem(s). Try to assess the degree to which commercial interests, political partisanship, anti-intellectualism, etc, play a role in the problem. Then figure out a reasonable strategy to deal with each of those problems.

That is a complete non answer. What 'strategies' might you suggest.

Let me go back one step - what role do you think government may or may not play in such a strategy?

Here's the kind of thing I'm hearing nowadays:
"I don't believe nothin' that those lamestreamers tell me, but I feel I can trust Mr. Trump to tell it like it is, with no PC bull! When them lamestreamers tell me he's wrong, it just make me even more sure that he's right."

One of the most trusted news organizations is PBS. Perhaps we need more news organizations which are protected from the news-for-profit model. Restoring (or creating) public trust in journalism by emphasizing credibility is probably a good idea.

Creating more of PBS changes nothing at all. People have that option already and those that watch it will continue to do so. Those that do not and chose another news outlet are not going to change what they are watching because you create more PBS stations or stations like it. If anything, it will dilute the funding for PBS and make it less relevant.

 

[Elvis Obama]

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate which rejects everything they hear outside their echo chamber. People who assume that no news source can be trusted. I cannot count the number of times I've heard journalists talk about how low their trust and approval ratings are, then say, "and not without some justification". Well? If they are aware of their own failings, aren't they responsible for dealing with that situation, rather than surrendering to the conditions which are causing their decline?

"As far as there being a free press within the government, I'm not sure what you are asking about...."

I assume you are referring to this?:

"If the media is not doing its job under the constitution, who is to blame, and what can be done to correct the problem? What role does anti-intellectualism play in the breakdown of trust that people have in the media?"

To break it down:
1- What, precisely, is the role of media in democracy? Why bother to guarantee its independence in the 1st amendment? Who is responsible for making sure that the media is doing its job as intended, the media? Our elected representatives? We the people?

From your first link, by Mr. Garry

"Despite a long tradition of and a general belief in a free press, the courts have not developed a comprehensive theory of freedom of the press and its protection under the first amendment."

In other words, we don't know. We see it. We poke at it with sticks. "The Founding Fathers made this thing", we tell each other. "Impressive.", we reply, "What's it for?"

It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll.

How's it going? Do we have an informed, trustworthy electorate? What part does the press play in our failure or success to create an informed electorate?

2- If we determine that there are systemic flaws in an institution which is a load bearing member of a democratic society, what should we do to address it? Is it the influence of the profit motive? Are we allowing editorial content to bleed too far into straight news reporting?

3- Anti-intellectualism is a disease, which has always been associated with demagoguery. Demagogues don't want you to think, they want you to respond to their emotional manipulations. Without absolving the ivory tower class of all responsibility, there are a number of reasons why appealing to resentful, jealous, angry boobs is a winning formula for power seekers. Journalists can only write the stuff, they can't force people to read it. Nonetheless, do journalists have a responsibility to tell us how stupid we are? To tell us that democracy is at risk?

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

And how would you 'address' that problem?

By getting a complete analysis of the problem(s). Try to assess the degree to which commercial interests, political partisanship, anti-intellectualism, etc, play a role in the problem. Then figure out a reasonable strategy to deal with each of those problems.

That is a complete non answer. What 'strategies' might you suggest.

Let me go back one step - what role do you think government may or may not play in such a strategy?

Here's the kind of thing I'm hearing nowadays:
"I don't believe nothin' that those lamestreamers tell me, but I feel I can trust Mr. Trump to tell it like it is, with no PC bull! When them lamestreamers tell me he's wrong, it just make me even more sure that he's right."

One of the most trusted news organizations is PBS. Perhaps we need more news organizations which are protected from the news-for-profit model. Restoring (or creating) public trust in journalism by emphasizing credibility is probably a good idea.

Creating more of PBS changes nothing at all. People have that option already and those that watch it will continue to do so. Those that do not and chose another news outlet are not going to change what they are watching because you create more PBS stations or stations like it. If anything, it will dilute the funding for PBS and make it less relevant.

"That is a complete non answer. What 'strategies' might you suggest."
Strategies for what? I have opened up these questions for debate.

#1: Does a free press have a role to play in democracy? If you truly believe that the 1st amendment rights were established as ends in and of themselves, and not because they are essential to democracy, there is nothing more to debate with you.

#2: If you believe that the rights enshrined in the 1st amendment were written as tools for democratic efficiency, this opens up the question of whether those freedoms are doing their job.

#3: If you get past that predicate and have concluded that they are not doing their job as intended by the framers, you can discuss what can be done to improve the situation.

You can't get past #1, and you want to discuss #3? And you don't like my tone? I'm not too thrilled about yours. If you're not interested in discussing the role that a free press plays in the efficient workings of democracy, then don't.

FWIW, I believe that the essential oversight role in a democracy is filled by the ordinary citizens of that society, not by government entities.

 

[FA_Q2]

I fundamentally disagree with the tone of this post. What I get from it - and correct me if I am getting the wrong impression - is that you see the idea of a free press as something that must be protected and enforced as it is required for a functioning democracy.

I think that you have missed the idea of a free press entirely. This statement:
"It's for the creation of an informed electorate. People who are thoughtful, rather than reactive. People who are demagogue-proof. People who can be trusted with the power of the poll."
I would categorize as false. The freedom of the press is simply to ensure that ideas can flow and the messages that people want to get out are not filtered by the government - the ultimate power because if you can control what people see and read you can effectively control what people think. The electorate itself is responsible for being informed and there is literally NOTHING that you can do to inform those that are unwilling. Those unwilling to be informed will remain so.

While it is a lofty and good goal to ensure we have an informed electorate, the free press is not charged with this or with anything for that matter. The very concept of a free press requires that there is no oversight other than the people themselves.

Is a free press something that needs to be protected. Yes, as is democracy itself. Does it need to be enforced? No. Enforced how?

I think that it's you who have missed the idea of a free press entirely. A free press is not an end in itself. It's a tool for democracy. As is free speech. They need to be assessed as to whether they are fulfilling their intended function. If they are not, that is a problem, and it needs to be addressed as a problem.

And how would you 'address' that problem?

By getting a complete analysis of the problem(s). Try to assess the degree to which commercial interests, political partisanship, anti-intellectualism, etc, play a role in the problem. Then figure out a reasonable strategy to deal with each of those problems.

That is a complete non answer. What 'strategies' might you suggest.

Let me go back one step - what role do you think government may or may not play in such a strategy?

Here's the kind of thing I'm hearing nowadays:
"I don't believe nothin' that those lamestreamers tell me, but I feel I can trust Mr. Trump to tell it like it is, with no PC bull! When them lamestreamers tell me he's wrong, it just make me even more sure that he's right."

One of the most trusted news organizations is PBS. Perhaps we need more news organizations which are protected from the news-for-profit model. Restoring (or creating) public trust in journalism by emphasizing credibility is probably a good idea.

Creating more of PBS changes nothing at all. People have that option already and those that watch it will continue to do so. Those that do not and chose another news outlet are not going to change what they are watching because you create more PBS stations or stations like it. If anything, it will dilute the funding for PBS and make it less relevant.

"That is a complete non answer. What 'strategies' might you suggest."
Strategies for what? I have opened up these questions for debate.

#1: Does a free press have a role to play in democracy? If you truly believe that the 1st amendment rights were established as ends in and of themselves, and not because they are essential to democracy, there is nothing more to debate with you.

A free press obviously has a role to play in a democracy.

That does not mean that they do not stand on themselves.

#2: If you believe that the rights enshrined in the 1st amendment were written as tools for democratic efficiency, this opens up the question of whether those freedoms are doing their job.

Not really - that discussion is open if they are developed as tools or if they exist on their own merit. The only thing that such a freedom being a 'tool' opens up is the discussion that the government has a right or obligation to ensure such is the case. I reject that idea (as well as the idea that they are a 'tool' rather than an inherent right).

#3: If you get past that predicate and have concluded that they are not doing their job as intended by the framers, you can discuss what can be done to improve the situation.

Of course we can. You, however, do not seem willing to do so. I directly asked what you see as a solution. So far I have received platitudes.

You can't get past #1, and you want to discuss #3? And you don't like my tone? I'm not too thrilled about yours. If you're not interested in discussing the role that a free press plays in the efficient workings of democracy, then don't.

Don't like your tone? Where the hell did you get that idea? I disagreed with your tone and I had thought that disagreement was the fundamental starting place of a debate.

This discussion was, I thought, about what can or should be done about a growing mistrust in media and growing biased reporting. Nowhere did I ever challenge that it was not important to a functioning democracy.

FWIW, I believe that the essential oversight role in a democracy is filled by the ordinary citizens of that society, not by government entities.

So do I. However, if we are to discuss possible solution it is worth noting that the people have NOT done so. information is readily available more than at any time in history and people are running away from it. That is why I specifically asked what you think a solution looks like. I am trying to establish a starting place for a meaningful discussion but it feels like you are actively trying to avoid it simply because I don't immediately agree with you.

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems to me the heart of the discussion between Elvis Obama and FA_Q2 isn't really about the Fourth Estate's role in a democracy. What strikes me as unsaid in the remarks I've read from your conversation is the nature and extent of the onus each citizen in a democracy has to exhibit rigorous and critical circumspection re: the information that comes their way and to actively seek information before forming an opinion.

Freedom of the (printing) press and the Fourth Estate's use of the presses is great, but at the end of the day, our society is both a democratic republic and capitalist. Those two things necessarily mean that information becomes a commodity, some might say a differentiable good/service. News organizations, the Fourth Estate, are going to air the information that best serves their aim of making money. That does not mean a free press does not exist or that our principle of having a free press has not been achieved.

When one considers the nature and extent to which freedom of the press exists in the U.S., how can one say we have "missed the boat" in any regard re: that goal?

• Every piece of information that isn't classified as secret for national security purposes is widely and readily available.
• Information that hasn't been discovered or analyzed is there to have either or both those things done to it. All that's needed is someone who wants to do so, not permission to do so.

In my mind, the issue, if there be one to begin with, is found in the consumers of information, not the producers of it. I think there is an issue, but it's not that journalists don't drop before us everything we need to know. It's that we don't express through our consumptive behavior what types of information we want news organizations to make most readily available, and, quite frankly, the push of a remote control is all it takes to tell broadcasters what one wants. Apparently, the American populace prefers soundbites and platitudes over substance and intellectual integrity and rigor. That is what I see as the problem.

Ask yourself why it is that PBS Newshour's viewership is lower than is that of ABC, CBS or NBC. It's certainly not because PBS isn't as equally accessible. Why do people tend to read blogs and editorial commentary more so that scholarly research? Certainly some rigorous research papers are less easily obtained than is a blog post, but for the majority of things one needs to know and know about, that's not the case.

 

[FA_Q2]

Apparently, the American populace prefers soundbites and platitudes over substance and intellectual and integrity and rigor. That is what I see as the problem.

This is the core problem. There is a solution to this (or more correctly stated it will solve itself) but it is not a pleasant one.

At the end of the day, this persistent issue is due to the great success we have. People will begin to wake up when that success fails and we, as a people, begin to 'feel the pain.'

 

[320 Years of History]

Apparently, the American populace prefers soundbites and platitudes over substance and intellectual and integrity and rigor. That is what I see as the problem.

This is the core problem. There is a solution to this (or more correctly stated it will solve itself) but it is not a pleasant one.

At the end of the day, this persistent issue is due to the great success we have. People will begin to wake up when that success fails and we, as a people, begin to 'feel the pain.'

Bold black:
I don't think I agree with that. My and my family's relative success, on the whole as well as individually for its members, is, as far as I can tell, largely driven by our commitments to intellectual curiosity combined with intellectual rigor and integrity, and putting in the effort to be those things. I don't think those things come to one by osmosis; one must want to be that way. I think success encourages, not discourages, one's being so.

 

[numan]

"FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" BELONGS TO WHOMEVER OWNS ONE

"Trust" is not a word contained in my political vocabulary.

There is not a single news source cited in this thread which I do not regard primarily as a tool for brainwashing and indoctrination, and I certainly do not regard them as sources of reliable information.

 

[320 Years of History]

"FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" BELONGS TO WHOMEVER OWNS ONE

"Trust" is not a word contained in my political vocabulary.

There is not a single news source cited in this thread which I do not regard primarily as a tool for brainwashing and indoctrination, and I certainly do not regard them as sources of reliable information.

Red:
I don't know how you can get through life like that. "Trust" is a word that most certainly exists in my political vocabulary; indeed my political vocabulary would be incomplete without it. It is quite often found following or preceding other words such as "don't," "lack of," or "any farther than I can throw them."

Blue:
The implication of that remark is that all the information you've obtained and that didn't come from one of those sources (or others of roughly the same ilk) is information you see that way. It thus stands to reason that the only things about which you have a well informed view are things you've personally discovered and investigated rigorously.

I applaud your doing so, but tell me....why, as goes collecting facts, do you feel compelled to "reinvent the wheel" so much? Your rigor in independently discovering the information you use to make decisions necessarily prevents you from applying a premium or discount to the veracity and relevance of information based on from where the information comes.

It's efficient to confirm whether information that comes one's way is wholly true. It's often a waste of resources to develop that information from scratch when others have already done so and done so with rigor and with integrity shared the info the obtained.

 

[FA_Q2]

Apparently, the American populace prefers soundbites and platitudes over substance and intellectual and integrity and rigor. That is what I see as the problem.

This is the core problem. There is a solution to this (or more correctly stated it will solve itself) but it is not a pleasant one.

At the end of the day, this persistent issue is due to the great success we have. People will begin to wake up when that success fails and we, as a people, begin to 'feel the pain.'

Bold black:
I don't think I agree with that. My and my family's relative success, on the whole as well as individually for its members, is, as far as I can tell, largely driven by our commitments to intellectual curiosity combined with intellectual rigor and integrity, and putting in the effort to be those things. I don't think those things come to one by osmosis; one must want to be that way. I think success encourages, not discourages, one's being so.

On the micro scale what you are saying makes sense. On the macro scale it is demonstrably false. As we enjoy large success people tend to start ignoring the government and taking what it does for granted. This is clearly reflected in our voter turnout. When things get though people start to take notice and concentrate on fixing it. When things work they are largely ignored.

It is the nature of groups.