Media Reform:

#78
#78
37L1 said:
A solution looking for a problem and becoming one instead.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to convince people of a solution. I'm just trying to generate ideas and put thoughts out there as we collectively move toward a solution. Nobody is looking for a problem... the problem found us in 2016 and this year we're seeing it's symptoms again. If we don't do something, it'll continue to get worse.
 
#79
#79
Vol_from_86 said:
I'm not trying to convince people of a solution. I'm just trying to generate ideas and put thoughts out there as we collectively move toward a solution. Nobody is looking for a problem... the problem found us in 2016 and this year we're seeing it's symptoms again. If we don't do something, it'll continue to get worse.
Click to expand...

The solution is to take away their revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#80
#80
ohhbother said:
But he’s not a journalist. He’s a political operative, an author and a commentator. Appearing on a television program doesn’t make you a journalist.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm talking about. If he had (or didn't have) a gold circle or something around his profile pic, marking him as a "reliable source" or something like that, it would be obvious to those of us who have no idea who this person is whose "report" is being shared to millions of Americans.
 
#81
#81
Vol_from_86 said:
This is what I'm talking about. If he had (or didn't have) a gold circle or something around his profile pic, marking him as a "reliable source" or something like that, it would be obvious to those of us who have no idea who this person is whose "report" is being shared to millions of Americans.
Click to expand...
Like a blue checkmark?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
Like a blue checkmark?
Click to expand...
Yes... like a blue checkmark, from a governing body more reliable and unbiased than Twitter. But it would need to be more like a watermark that can be applied to the photo itself so Twitter/Facebook/Parler can't control it.
 
#83
#83
Vol_from_86 said:
Yes... like a blue checkmark, from a governing body more reliable and unbiased than Twitter. But it would need to be more like a watermark that can be applied to the photo itself so Twitter/Facebook/Parler can't control it.
Click to expand...
Bwhahahaha. That's funny. Reliable and unbiased in the same sentence as governing body. Good one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, 37L1 and hog88
#84
#84
McDad said:
I think making a conscious choice to NOT get your news from twitter, facebook, etc is a good first start when deciding where to go for actual "news". those platforms are cesspools. There is a reason one of our more partisan prolific posters almost exclusively shares twitter posts.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. When a cell phone is a necessity rather than a tool, twitter is going to be a ubiquitous part of 'news' because it's quick.
 
#87
#87
ohhbother said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I was a journalist for almost a decade before becoming a marketing and communications executive. My husband spent more than two decades as a newspaper publisher. There are many, many good journalists doing their job every day. It is up to the reader to discern between a credible news outlet (the Associated Press, for instance), a political commentator (Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson, for instance) and conspiracy theorists (many to be found on Twitter).

Someone mentioned a governing code of ethics. Credible journalists are members of the Society of Professional Journaliats, which has a code of ethics: SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

I’m very proud of the years I spent as a journalist. And I’m proud of the journalists who continue to report the news in a credible way today.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps a simple solution is to fund the Society of Professional Journalists, if they are willing to do some things to distinguish reliable journalists.

What I'm suggesting is not unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting to mute the press. I'm suggesting to distinguish the most reliable members of the press. However, it's worth remember that the constitution was written long before televisions and computers. The authors couldn't have possibly imagined anything resembling today's world. If modifying the constitution, as an act of national defense, is what it takes to save our republic, then it needs to be modified. But we shouldn't have to do that.
 
#89
#89
Vol_from_86 said:
Then perhaps a simple solution is to fund the Society of Professional Journalists, if they are willing to do some things to distinguish reliable journalists.
Click to expand...
who exactly should fund them?

Vol_from_86 said:
I'm suggesting to distinguish the most reliable members of the press.
Click to expand...
then that goes right back to my first question.
Vol_from_86 said:
However, it's worth remember that the constitution was written long before televisions and computers. The authors couldn't have possibly imagined anything resembling today's world. If modifying the constitution, as an act of national defense, is what it takes to save our republic, then it needs to be modified. But we shouldn't have to do that.
Click to expand...
For everyone who makes this ridiculous claim there are dozens of examples where they seemed to know exactly what they are doing. These aren't groundbreaking principles they just happened to have never been put all together. If you wish to change the 1st they even included a part on how to do that

I encourage you to read their writings at the time. You really get a better idea of just how brilliant and revolutionary the idea was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#90
#90
Vol_from_86 said:
I'm not trying to convince people of a solution. I'm just trying to generate ideas and put thoughts out there as we collectively move toward a solution. Nobody is looking for a problem... the problem found us in 2016 and this year we're seeing it's symptoms again. If we don't do something, it'll continue to get worse.
Click to expand...
Freedom is great until it comes in the form of freedom without responsibility, then it isn't really freedom anymore, it's anarchy. This isn't anarchy. So it must be freedom, as in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, freedom.

You see a problem with the media and are trying to institute some "regulation" as a way to "solve" the "problem."

Until you can come up with a "law" (regulation) that will make people responsible on their own volition, you are only creating a bigger problem with your "regulation" that is attempting to "fix" a problem through government intervention.

And that's a mighty slippery slope. What could go wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother and hog88
#91
#91
SpaceCoastVol said:
Good luck with that. When a cell phone is a necessity rather than a tool, twitter is going to be a ubiquitous part of 'news' because it's quick.
Click to expand...
I've chosen to avoid those platforms. Not that difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#93
#93
Vol_from_86 said:
Have a system for licensing reporters and certifying reports similar to what we have for doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Form a governing body of reporters to serve a role similar to that which the Bar Association and Board of Engineers & Surveyors serves for lawyers and engineers, respectively. Make it easy to identify licensed reporters by giving them some credentials to tag onto their name similar to doctors and engineers using M.D. or P.E... Have the governing body work with legislature to for licensing requirements, continuing education requirements, and code of regulations. If it's found that a reporter is working with corrupt politicians or extremist organizations to sow misinformation, fine them and suspend their license. Hold them accountable. Make them think twice before a story out there. Make them get serious about screening sources for dependability.

Bloggers, opinion writers, and journalist can still do their thing. People like Freak can still do their thing... but in today's world we've got to take the fight against misinformation seriously. We need to separate legitimate reporting from activists posing as journalists. We've got to put a stop to extremists creating a website and masquerading as news bearers and fact checkers. We've got to put a stop to Twitter and Facebook having the authority to decide what is considered misinformation. If they flag something as misinformation that isn't misinformation, they should be fined.

Thoughts? Ideas? I'd like to present something reasonable to my Senator.
Click to expand...

That is horrible. I don't think you understand the unintended consequences.
 
#94
#94
GSD82 said:
Journalism is dead. Today's "journalists" are largely nothing more than lapdogs for dems. They are the enemy of the people. Best thing to do is simply turn the channel and don't listen to these hacks.
Click to expand...
I take a contrary position to this line of thinking. I think the opposite is true and that good journalism is alive and thriving. The internet has been a boon to good, solid journalism. The networks and major newspapers were always a misinformation tool used by the oligarchy and now are trying to right a sinking ship. Fragmentation of information and news has exposed them.You’ve got access at the click of a mouse to such sites as Reason, Cato, Mises, The Intercept before Glenn Greenwald left, Modern Age, etc. The reputation of the corporate news cartel is deservingly tanking and that is good for journalism.
 
#95
#95
midnight orange said:
I take a contrary position to this line of thinking. I think the opposite is true and that good journalism is alive and thriving. The internet has been a boon to good, solid journalism. The networks and major newspapers were always a misinformation tool used by the oligarchy and now are trying to right a sinking ship. You’ve got access at the click of a mouse to such sites as Reason, Cato, Mises, The Intercept before Glenn Greenwald left, Modern Age, etc. The reputation of the corporate news cartel is deservingly tanking and that is good for journalism.
Click to expand...
That's sweet.
 
#96
#96
utvolpj said:
who exactly should fund them? You and me? Homeland Security? The CIA? Doesn't matter.

then that goes right back to my first question. It's easy to distinguish qualifying members of an organization. There's dozens of organizations that do this routinely across a wide range of fields. Again using ASFPM as an example, they operate using private donations, membership fees and government grants thanks in part to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1994.

For everyone who makes this ridiculous claim there are dozens of examples where they seemed to know exactly what they are doing. These aren't groundbreaking principles they just happened to have never been put all together. If you wish to change the 1st they even included a part on how to do that

I encourage you to read their writings at the time. You really get a better idea of just how brilliant and revolutionary the idea was.I don't know which part of that statement got your panties in a bunch, but okay.
Click to expand...
 
#97
#97
midnight orange said:
I take a contrary position to this line of thinking. I think the opposite is true and that good journalism is alive and thriving. The internet has been a boon to good, solid journalism. The networks and major newspapers were always a misinformation tool used by the oligarchy and now are trying to right a sinking ship. Fragmentation of information and news has exposed them.You’ve got access at the click of a mouse to such sites as Reason, Cato, Mises, The Intercept before Glenn Greenwald left, Modern Age, etc. The reputation of the corporate news cartel is deservingly tanking and that is good for journalism.
Click to expand...
This is how Bernie Sanders wanted to solve the problem. He encouraged people to move toward the smaller, non-main stream media. It's not a bad idea.
 
#99
#99
utvolpj said:
It doesn't matter who funds a regulatory body picking winners and losers and controls information?
Click to expand...
You've done nothing but try to poke holes in everything I've said in this thread, which is fine, but it's a little tiresome and I've got other things to do. So let's cut to the chase. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
 
#100
#100
Vol_from_86 said:
You've done nothing but try to poke holes in everything I've said in this thread, which is fine, but it's a little tiresome and I've got other things to do. So let's cut to the chase. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
Click to expand...

Shooting down a terrible idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top