I'm not a big fan of Musk, but this would be fantastic if it could actually enlighten truth!
.
Unfortunately, the more influence this system gains, the more valuable it will be to sell to the powers that be. And trust me, either it's influence will be sold out to the highest bidder or Elon Misk will fall out of wealth and relevance.
Yes. The sad truth is the truth is for sale. The same mechanism that causes reviewers and critics and watch dogs to fall victim to bias would inevitably creep in. When you control the source of “impartial truth” you can control the truth- and who polices the police. Google- the de facto source of knowledge on the internet- or any other search engine... everything from recommended hits to what is displayed to even your user data is subject to their whims and a tool of their agenda.
Even government organizations like the FDA aren’t immune when they are supposed to be the ultimate bastion of impartial review- or at least only beholden to the interests and agendas of the government. But where there are people- there are relationships. A like or dislike of a person or organization or idea- a favor owed here or there, the use of the platform to further ones personal morality or vision of what the future should be...
And in the end you need someone to interpret data and sum it up because 99% of people won’t review raw data and draw an informed conclusion. The majority can’t without additional training and expertise beyond their scope. So that person often imparts a certain bias one way or another without intent since it is their interpretation of the data. Trust and knowledge is still required.
Holding a plebiscite on journalists is a terrible idea. You'll inevitably get a flood of people who hate CNN and Rachel Maddow without any sort of control.
I mean I'm not sure why this surprises anyone. Literally all of these companies are for profit. None of them are charitable organizations or registered non profits. All media outlets both left and right are 100% for profit and accountable to their parent companies and stake holders. You report what sells, period.
Well- there’s also the fact that a HUGE factor separating the “golden years” of news coverage (especially in the US) from modern media was FCC fairness doctrine. The doctrine required that news outlets dedicate a certain amount of time to discussion of controversial issues in the public interest, and that opposing views be presented. It was part of a standard of professional journalism meant to require stations to expose viewers to multiple perspectives and view points on issues of importance.
When the doctrine was repealed- it was a major contributor to the news evolved. Technology compounded the issue. The “24 hour news cycle”
Meant that programs had less time to gather information and compose stories, and that the news media needed constant content instead of choosing from matters of importance. No longer bound to report on issues of public interest- these issues could be anything- such as celebrity news and gossip which were once “tabloid fodder.” The lack of requirement for opposing views opened the doors for media as pure propaganda without accountability beyond that of any other broadcast program.
Online and digital media complicates things. The line between a “professional” journalist and not is now almost non existent. Where before a clear distinction could be made by presence on network television or circulation figures for paper journalism- what differentiates a reporter for Buzzfeed from a blogger or a CNN online column?
What’s more- with camera phones and the like- more and more stories and footage of events in “professional news” come from social media or bystanders or rely upon eyewitness reports. So it’s hard to argue why one outlet or one twitter account would be held to a different standard than Joe or Jane when they are on the same platform with the same sources and processes.
That feeds into one of the primary oppositions to media standards- free speech. While it seems fairly reasonable that the news be held to some standard of integrity- a free press and individual free speech come into play. Classically the standards of things like the fairness act only applied or were intended for professionals- not for regular citizens. But with those lines blurred- and things like “comedy news shows” and “topical comedy” it creates serious issues for differentiating whom should be held to “professional standards” and how to create rules that couldn’t easily be subverted by structuring news as comedy or “crowd sourced.”
The ultimate “libertarian view” would hold that no one, including those who can afford media empires, should be curtailed in exercising their rights- even if they want to put out news that is blatantly and perhaps dangerous false. A more tempered view based on the absolute freedom of ALL over the individual freedoms of any specific person; would hold that such views are akin to “might makes right” where the richest or most powerful have control and can do as they please at the expense of the freedom of others to do as they please. “Theoretical freedom” vs. measured freedom.
But presently yes- “money talks” and those who have the money to run media empires have the money to more or less influence laws so they may run them as they choose.
That maniac is getting really dangerous. He's a loose cannon in every respect. Putting the truth up for popular vote without any control but a megalomaniac wannabe with bad hair plugs? Yeah, what the fuck could go wrong...
.
Unfortunately, the more influence this system gains, the more valuable it will be to sell to the powers that be. And trust me, either it's influence will be sold out to the highest bidder or Elon Misk will fall out of wealth and relevance.
Meant that programs had less time to gather information and compose stories, and that the news media needed constant content instead of choosing from matters of importance. No longer bound to report on issues of public interest- these issues could be anything- such as celebrity news and gossip which were once “tabloid fodder.” The lack of requirement for opposing views opened the doors for media as pure propaganda without accountability beyond that of any other broadcast program.