Propaganda and media regulation

[FUNKbrs]

Pizzagate.

You know, because Benghazi wasn't a big enough joke, right?

With the possibility for the allegation for anything, in the end, people begin to believe nothing.

Constantly screaming "WOLF! WOLF!" so often people start to believe that wolves are all imaginary.

So what's the solution? We had a presidency decided by shitty memes. Memes that weren't accurate, factual, hell, even resembling actual logical thought. We got a fucking frog vs. a golden bull, and somehow the goddamn frog won.

I can see I'm losing you.

Ok, let's reel this back in.

Fake news. Clickbait. Kneejerk articles. Confirmation bias. Echo chambers. Bubbles of autonomy and safe spaces.

We are flooded by gonzo propaganda journalism. It used to be the news came with a little spin, now the spin comes with a little news. Journalistic standards are at rock bottom lows. An article on a news site has less factual authority than grafitti on a bathroom stall.

But there's a solution, it's just unconstitutional: regulate journalism.

They do it in china all the time, the government controls the media, to keep them from lying or spreading corporate propaganda.

How much Benghazi will it take to change the will of the people? We've seen the restrictions on guns come down from mass shootings, constitution schmonstitution (yes, I am an americunt). People voted for Trump because they figured there was NO WAY he could posssibly be as big of a piece of shit as he appears, that it's all a smear campaign. How many more fake scandals will it take for Americans to say "enough is enough" and start finding a way to abandon freedom of the press and regulate the media?

They used to do it under the auspices of the FCC. You needed a license to broadcast television or radio, and you had to fulfill some sort of civic good to justify your license. Remember public programming? They used to make the cable stations give away free airtime to budding television makers, for crying out loud. Broad cast fake news back then, hell, even broadcast "profanity" and you'd get your license pulled.

It looked like freedom of the press, but really the FCC could shut anyone down they wanted to if they became a problem. The internet ruined all that, of course. Hell, I'm making this thread: I'm well aware of how shit things have become if you're getting this news from me.

So, will all this propaganda reach a breaking point, where people start to someway or another regulate the media to a standard higher than the National Enquirer? Will we one day welcome the end of freedom of the press in favor of a well regulated media we can trust for a change?

Or, could things actually get WORSE?

I'm going with #2.

[Gario]

Believe it or not, I'm almost on board, but there is the one nagginh question that always knocks me off of that train:

Who determines what's true?

Seems simple, but that question has as many different answers as people on the planet. That little detail really fucks with the idea that we should regulate the press. However, if some answer to that question actually can be satisfactorily found, I wouldn't be against the concept.

I don't see that answer happening anytime soon, but I leave that possibility open.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 11/29/16 02:17 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Game over man. Game over.

you sound like Mao

[aviewaskewed]

Here's a simple means by which to at the least fix the television end (which let's face it, is where most people are consuming news): Take the profit motive back out. That was one of Reagan's great unsung fuck ups, making the news a for profit industry vs. a public service networks had to carry.

As far as how and what is getting disseminated, I think it starts with education. People need to be taught how to research and value facts and truth better in the schools. Journalists need to be taught this even more so. The reason this shit works is because people are willing, and profit motivated to peddle it, and the consumer is too stupid and lazy to check and double check.

I was with you till you started talking about a government sanctioned system and mentioned China as a model. We do not want to go the route of modeling ourselves after repressive regimes that control their information flow. Allowing the government control of what goes on the air can't help but do that (especially with the frog you mentioned and his court of malignant tadpoles to keep the metaphor rolling). We didn't break it in a day, and we can't fix it in a day. The flow of information is an area I want the government involved in as little as humanly possible.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/29/16 06:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: lol, you mean facebook, right? Most people get their news from a social network or internet search than from anything else. TV's on it's way to being a dead medium.

It's been a long day....lol

FB is actually an easier situation on the surface. They can set standards cause algorithms, blah blah. Downside is there isn't much they can do with individual users putting the shit up and blasting it out there (sure they could crack down, but that probably costs them users). So I guess point one had some fuggin holes. The rest of it I think is solid though, I just have little to no faith that the will is ever going to be there to make it so.

[FUNKbrs]

At 11/28/16 09:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Will we one day welcome the end of freedom of the press in favor of a well regulated media we can trust for a change?

Or, could things actually get WORSE?

I'm going with #2.

At 11/29/16 02:17 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Lol, we're all fucked. I thought you of all people knew that.

I feel kind of special I can still slip quote text in on you and get away with it.

It's mob rule from here on out.

It kind of always was, though. The New Deal was greatly influenced by mob style tactics (yes, mobs of protestors are still mobs, even if they are smart and act civilized)

It will get worse.

It's funny how people point at Africa as a place stuck in the past, but honestly I see politics in Africa as a window into the future the rest of the world will be in 50-100 years.

The evil that people were capable of during WWII was happening last year somewhere in the world and those fucks are in power now.

I think it all starts with an intentionally defunded education system. WWII was mainly caused by a weak educational system during WWI imho.

Game over man. Game over.

I still believe the mastodons were smarter and more civilized than humanity. They had it all figured out.

At 11/29/16 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: That was one of Reagan's great unsung fuck ups, making the news a for profit industry vs. a public service networks had to carry.

I was looking up Barry Goldwater because of the "allegations of mental illness/grounds for libel lawsuits from politicians" issue, and was amazed at how much work he did in media. He did believe in aliens though, which was weird.

People need to be taught how to research and value facts and truth better in the schools. Journalists need to be taught this even more so. The reason this shit works is because people are willing, and profit motivated to peddle it, and the consumer is too stupid and lazy to check and double check.

I disagree. Not on the idea that people should be better educated in schools, but WHY they are not better educated in schools. You can't teach kids skepticism and then expect them to just sit there and let you continue to dictate anything else. Critical thinking is a much slower process than accepting knowledge on faith, so there's an efficiency issue involved in not teaching kids elementary logic. A skeptical child will eventually be a better human, but a kid who obeys orders blindly will make a better employee.

I was with you till you started talking about a government sanctioned system and mentioned China as a model. We do not want to go the route of modeling ourselves after repressive regimes that control their information flow. Allowing the government control of what goes on the air can't help but do that (especially with the frog you mentioned and his court of malignant tadpoles to keep the metaphor rolling). We didn't break it in a day, and we can't fix it in a day. The flow of information is an area I want the government involved in as little as humanly possible.

My argument is that media regulation is not new, it was the purview of the FCC, and as such kept as a terrible secret by the upper echelon of media who knew the illusion of autonomy was one of the few things keeping their house of cards from tumbling down. We only THINK we had free media; we honestly never did until just recently, and boy howdy are we starting to regret it. China is an ancient culture; it's not that what they're doing is right, it's that it works well enough to hold their society together.

At 11/29/16 06:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/29/16 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Here's a simple means by which to at the least fix the television end (which let's face it, is where most people are consuming news)

lol, you mean facebook, right? Most people get their news from a social network or internet search than from anything else. TV's on it's way to being a dead medium.

Haha, yeah, that's all that's really going to happen. Facebook police will become the new FCC. Anything not cleared through FB will become "alt news" and as such uncredentialed and spurious.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/29/16 07:17 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I was looking up Barry Goldwater because of the "allegations of mental illness/grounds for libel lawsuits from politicians" issue, and was amazed at how much work he did in media. He did believe in aliens though, which was weird.

If only that'd been the worst thing about him....but at least then we were collectively smart enough to go "yeah, we clearly don't want that". Actually, I see more then a few parallels between this election and Goldwater/Johnson the more I think about it.

I disagree. Not on the idea that people should be better educated in schools, but WHY they are not better educated in schools. You can't teach kids skepticism and then expect them to just sit there and let you continue to dictate anything else. Critical thinking is a much slower process than accepting knowledge on faith, so there's an efficiency issue involved in not teaching kids elementary logic. A skeptical child will eventually be a better human, but a kid who obeys orders blindly will make a better employee.

Alllegedly, they're supposed to be teaching critical thinking, especially in high school english when I was there. The problem is that prior to that there wasn't a huge amount of effort put on that in the curriculum. Which is why I think we need to be trying to start teaching this stuff at the elementary level. Because that's when kids are deciding whether they want to learn or not. Whether they'll get something out of schooling or it's a chore they feel like they have to get through to never deal with it again. I agree with your point, but I disagree that you can't have a human being who questions things, yet is still a good employee. I'm managing a shipping program with two other guys and I swear the upper echelon has to hate us by now from all the times over the last month or so where we've had to constantly say "listen, all this new stuff you're doing? It's bad, it's not working....please explain how this crap is supposed to work again, because it's not". I think skepticism and dissent are fine, I'm full of it. But I also understand there are times where you have to temper that with a little humility to learn and get things done.

My argument is that media regulation is not new, it was the purview of the FCC, and as such kept as a terrible secret by the upper echelon of media who knew the illusion of autonomy was one of the few things keeping their house of cards from tumbling down. We only THINK we had free media; we honestly never did until just recently, and boy howdy are we starting to regret it. China is an ancient culture; it's not that what they're doing is right, it's that it works well enough to hold their society together.

Regulation isn't the enemy, it's a friend. But I think regulation should always be somewhat light. Not a restriction on content other then simple common sense stuff like "don't lie". Which of course is a problem as old as the hills (that piece of shit Hearst built an empire on lying). People using the power of the press to disseminate bullshit isn't new, what's new is the forms to disseminate it and the general dumbing down of the electorate and the pervasive idea that political discussion should be off limits lest someone get offended. Or that when an election is over we're just not supposed to pay attention anymore unless politics is your "hobby". That's what the bastards want.

Haha, yeah, that's all that's really going to happen. Facebook police will become the new FCC. Anything not cleared through FB will become "alt news" and as such uncredentialed and spurious.

Most probably, but if what makes it up is actually legitimate, it would at least be a situation where people are getting the right stuff. But like I say, even that won't work because I think a lot of people don't read links and articles there, they read false equivalency memes attached to funny pictures.