Sfdebris.net

I am against them, but on the condition of media employees having regular debates with the general public of all idological shades and these debates are always prominetly featured on ther websites. To make these debates fair would be a struggle but it could be done.

It would solve our current problem of insular media elites having a protective echochamber.

Okay, ity's just interesting speculation.

Whoa, are we talking about resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine?

I confess to having a slight aversion to the idea on general principle - I'm naturally somewhat distrustful of making the government the arbiter of truth. But I suspect I could be swayed by the right argument on that front.

But there's a bigger problem - I just don't think it would work. The Fairness Doctrine kind of worked back when the media landscape was dominated by the big three. Three's a manageable number of outlets to keep track of. But in our new digital playground? Impossible. Any crazy person with a webcam can become an internet 'reporter' these days, and plenty of them do. We couldn't enforce anything on them, and we can't prevent people from watching them.

But then again, maybe that's not the problem you're trying to solve. Who are the insular media elites and why do we care about them?

The solution is simple. Don't regulate people putting out news, regulate what is called news. Smack Youtube, Vidme, Dailymotion and the rest with fines when the let users tag channels and videos as "news" when it fails the fairness doctrine. Smack the blog services if they don't enforce the fairness doctrine. You can still put out content on current affairs, but you can't call it news, or journalism or whatever. You could set up your own servers, but your tempting fate if you are popular enough and you need to have more interest than randos on the internet. Or maybe we should just give up regulating media.

I'd settle fore debate moderator's that actually do their job. Make the debaters answer questions and make sure decorum is followed

ORCACommander wrote:I'd settle fore debate moderator's that actually do their job. Make the debaters answer questions and make sure decorum is followed

Too true. Impartial mediator my ass.

I think that it would be both difficult and dangerous to try to regulate commentary and journalism in all but the most extreme cases. Particularly in the current climate where the "President" is arguing that news outlets should lose their liscences for saying things that he disagrees with. It would likely lead to views against what those in power approve of being stifled, and/or, alternatively, a perpetuation of the trend to treat all ideas, however preposterous or offensive, as having equal merit, with the media being discouraged from ever calling out obvious bullshit and being required to give it equal air time.

Plus, as noted above by TGLS, the practical issues with trying to regulate something as vast and easily accessed as the internet in this manner.

That said, continuing on TGLS's point, I would maybe be open to making it legally fraud to label demonstrably false stories as "news". Though this is still somewhat dangerous, and possibly wouldn't pass Constitutional scrutiny in America, in my opinion.

we already have libel and slander laws. those have immunity from the 1st amendment

The Romulan Republic wrote:I think that it would be both difficult and dangerous to try to regulate commentary and journalism in all but the most extreme cases. Particularly in the current climate where the "President" is arguing that news outlets should lose their liscences for saying things that he disagrees with. It would likely lead to views against what those in power approve of being stifled, and/or, alternatively, a perpetuation of the trend to treat all ideas, however preposterous or offensive, as having equal merit, with the media being discouraged from ever calling out obvious bullshit and being required to give it equal air time.

Plus, as noted above by TGLS, the practical issues with trying to regulate something as vast and easily accessed as the internet in this manner.

That said, continuing on TGLS's point, I would maybe be open to making it legally fraud to label demonstrably false stories as "news". Though this is still somewhat dangerous, and possibly wouldn't pass Constitutional scrutiny in America, in my opinion.

How is it giving something an extra subsidy a regulation?

Agent Vinod wrote:I am against them, but on the condition of media employees having regular debates with the general public of all idological shades and these debates are always prominetly featured on ther websites. To make these debates fair would be a struggle but it could be done.

Really? All ideological shades? So debates between homeopaths and doctors, or flat earthers and geologists? And you want these debates to be with members of the general public? Which is to say, people who may not have any more than a casual understanding of what they purport to believe? This seems like a waste of time. Not every ideology is worth debating.

Not to mention that debates themselves are terrible methods of getting information across. Since the goal in a debate is not to determine the truth of a proposition, it's to convince people of the truth of a proposition, debaters have every incentive to lie, misdirect, etc. if it means achieving that goal. If in a debate two people have directly opposite positions they can't both be right. Why would you ever want people to be convinced of something that is wrong?

Wild_Kraken wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote: Why would you ever want people to be convinced of something that is wrong?

That does happen anyways, but it's time for the Ivy League Gang to learn that they cannot just yell from the mountaintop unchallanged.