Answer me this – April 12, 2024
Should fake news be censored in a democratic society? Why or why not?
We wouldn’t have to censor fake or real news if we moved news out of “entertainment” and put it back into public service. If the news didn’t have to cater to its sponsors and was not subject to ratings, news people could do what they wanted to do — write the news as honestly as they can. They don’t start out wanting to write fake news or to bend the news to avoid offending a sponsor. That’s what they have to do to make the boss happy.
If you have never watched the movie “Network,” you should. It’s fiction, but it’s true fiction because all the predictions in that 1976 movie have happened.
The results are exactly what you’d expect. Even the best news outlets tread carefully lest their newscasts upset a big sponsor.
If you require news to be public service, not required to earn its living with sponsors and the selling of time, you’d be amazed at how the news will change. Of course it is unlikely to happen. If anything, it will keep getting worse because greed is the driving force in this country. Until we stop worshipping money and possession and the whole concept of “more, there’s never enough,” we are doomed. That bottom line is the force behind everything we hate — and everything we love.
We hate what money is doing to society, but we want a piece of it. No one wants to be poor, but how rich do we need to be? When is enough … ENOUGH?
Share this:
Categories: #News, Anecdote, Daily Prompt, Getting old, Media, Q & A, questions
SERENDIPITY - SEEKING INTELLIGENT LIFE ON EARTH 
For me the US media is propaganda of the state. I use independent activist channels from websites online, YouTube channels that provide in depth political analysis of things across the spectrum. You’d be surprised how even conservatives on YouTube will say things that would have ended their careers and reputations on Fox News. But because they get their money from donations on patreon they don’t give a shit. Crowd funded truth. That’s a revolutionary concept. To pay someone JUST to say the truth and pull out the money if they won’t. That’s why social media has replaced media in this country. Because we’re tired of the same spoon fed lies we were given under the Bush regime and then Obama.
LikeLike
I don’t think crowd media has replaced more standard media. I don’t trust either source. I want to know what sources they used and they usually won’t bother to tell us especially when the source is what someone whispered to them in the bathroom or belongs to their biggest donator, It could as easily be just their opinion. Why would their opinion be more trustworthy than CBS or CNN?
We are tired of lies and bent truth, but I’m tired of gullible people believing anything non corporate is inherently more honest. It isn’t. The people who donate money have their own agendas which may or may not be honest — and their version of honest may not be mine.
When MONEY stops being the reason for presenting news, I might take notice. Until then? It’s just another version of the same thing with a new name and different sponsors, er, donators.
LikeLike
It would depends on the generation. For my generation and beyond it has definitely replaced traditional (corporate bought and controlled) media. I won’t bother turning on the regular news. If I want to know something I will look it up for myself. Look at various channels. Democracy Now! With Amy Goodman is also good. And Abby Martin from the Empire Files is one of the best if not the best. When it comes to critique of American foreign policy and what they do to other countries. In the case of Empire Files that is funded by a corporation but because it’s foreign and also it has multiple funding, it’s always from the perspective of the people. Not a political institution. Also foreign news tends to be enlightening. That doesn’t mean necessarily what they have is better but gives you an eye into a situation from another perspective.
LikeLike
I think looking things up is THE best way to try to track down the truth. You know, if people would talk to each other and LISTEN to each other, we could discover the truth. But we don’t do that and I see little likelihood of an improvement.
Other sources are never inherently more honest than American sources and “the people” often know even less than we do. I think for EVERYONE, a healthy dose of skepticism should be an important part of our understanding. And, as Garry pointed out even in local things like fires, there are layers, many of which are being hidden because someone doesn’t want to be blamed, lose their job, their election, their reputation or money.
There’s no reason why one source is necessarily more honest than another. Everyone has an opinion and even when they don’t know it, that opinion, that agenda seeps into their version of truth.
Not only healthy skepticism but a willingness to look up other sources. Be a sleuth. We can’t always get to the source, but we can get close. It’s one of the real benefits of the internet. If we dig our teeth in, it’s amazing what we can learn. It won’t necessarily be the ultimate truth, but it’s sure to be interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm … I take your point, but we have an excellent public service news source in this country, the BBC, and yet fake news circulates like wildfire and is consumed as eagerly as Easter Eggs, to mix my metaphors!
LikeLike
And that’s because news has become so competitive. PBS can be bent just as easily as CBS or CNN or NBC, but are less likely — fractionally at least. They have to beg for donations too, so it’s still — regardless of the source — all about the bottom line. Until we erase that line, truth won’t ever be the point. And, of course, it would help if the people who run news were less attached to their own versions of truth.
What IS truth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The BBC isn’t funded by donations but through the license fee, which all television owners in the country must pay (even if they never watch the BBC) by law. However with more and more options and ways of watching TV, that system is increasingly under threat. Each time the BBC’s charter is renewed (every five years I think) there is a debate about whether the license fee should be scrapped. That day may come, but so far the Beeb remains fiercely independent and relatively neutral.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We had the equivalent here and ditched it in the 1960s. It has been downhill ever since. Every 3 years, every public and private TV and radio station had to fill out forms from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to prove they were fulfilling their obligations to supply un-biased public service shows and information so they could keep their free licenses. Then, it all changed. Did someone pay someone else to get the law changed? We will never know, but once that transition occurred, it has been so much worse that today you can’t tell what you are watching. It could be news — or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NPR which is government funded was caught cheating the truth. The COVID virus was created in the Wuhan lab in China and it’s been known for a long time that the the furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not occur in nature but is an artificial variant with a particular CGG-CGG RNA coding not found in Nature for this type of virus. The lap-top was confirmed to be authentic as was the money laundering and bribes through 20 shell companies. The style and tone of rhetoric does not determine the truth. The decline in journalism is mostly on the pompous left. Lies can be told with good manners and elegant language but when it suppresses the truth it is more dangerous than vulgarity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not even sure what public truth is. I often think most outlets have a little piece of truth, but no one KNOWS what’s going on because the bottom line information is heavily suppressed and the little that escapes into the world is heavily bent too. Do I think that virus was created in a lab? Yes. Can I prove it? No. I just think it’s the most likely truth based on something Conan Doyle said a long time ago.
The news has not been true — maybe EVER. It was all twisted up back when Washington was president. I don’t believe anybody except those who I know who were actually there when “it” (whatever “it” is) occurred. Everything else is designed to fit someone’s agenda — and it’s always about getting more money — whether it be corporate sponsorship, a huge salary or donations. Everyone has an agenda, even those who don’t think don’t.
Because we no longer share across party/belief/ethnic lines, we don’t even try to track down actual truth. We could do it with participation from everyone. That will never happen as long as the ultimate drive is money and power.
Greed is an agenda. It will always squash the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post Marilyn, you know I agree with you wholeheartedly. There has been a decline with what is journalism for a long time. I find even reputuable newspapers now the stories are so badly written and you have to wade through a sea of waffle to find out what the story is. It is atrocious. However, this idea that you can’t believe what news people are telling you is interesting. I also think you have hit the nail on the head about sponsors and money.
How much money do we need? Good question. Enough to live a comfortable life. To have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. Maybe a little more for other things. I am a believer in climate change and I believe what is the point of being rich, if you are rich then you will continue to destroy the planet.
LikeLike
I am married to a reporter and our friends were all “in the business” too, so I have a unique approach. You can tell the truth as long as it doesn’t offend a sponsor, upset your boss or worse, your boss’s boss. Small truths about fires, crimes, etc. When any degree of politics enters the picture, it won’t be true. Once people have an opinion, an agenda, or expect to make money? Truth is gone and sometimes, was never there. It has only gotten worse with the years. We had a brief flare of honesty in the late 1950s, but then the corporations moved news into the entertainment division and that was the end of truth. Individuals willing to stand up to the corporation? We had a few. They were squashed in the end, though they tried.
Sometimes, I listen to the news on TV and I KNOW it’s a lie because I was there. It wasn’t that way. Garry was in a lot of places covering news and he personally knows how often he could not say what he knew to be true or he’d be an ex-reporter. Tom was a director. And they two of them have stories to tell — not necessarily the ones they talk about on their podcast. Other darker stories they will tell in private, but not publicly.
Honesty was never part of any government’s policies — not way back in Rome or now. You have to wonder if there is ONE truth & if we have ever known what it is.
Gotta run. Doctor appointment! I may add to this later when we get back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I wonder if looking for reputable people on the internet isn’t better. They don’t have those restrictions and can almost say what they want.
I think the gov has never wanted us to know the truth. That is especially true in Australia. They cover up everything and never tell us the truth. We have whistle blowers they will spend the rest of their lives in gaol and the people that committed the crimes are being protected. The world is F***ed. Totally. the only consolation is I’m old, getting older all the time, so I won’t have to see it get really bad, I hope.
LikeLike
I think that is true in EVERY country. They hide more than they will ever tell us. They don’t want us to know what is really happening. In this country, it has become the job of both parties to make sure nothing good is ever said of the other one. This manages to prevent any positive legislation from even coming to a vote.
Worst of all, I think this was always true. Long before the internet, government’s hid everything they could from their citizens. They did it in Rome, they’s always done it here and the internet has just confused the issue. Yes, people on the net don’t have restriction, but they also are not obligated to be even slightly truthful. Actually, at this point? No one is obligated to be truthful. It’s hard to believe how low we have fallen. Despite that, it could still get worse. I’m just hoping at some point, everyone begins to think that at least a touch of honesty might be a good thing.
LikeLike
I think you are right Marilyn. Though what is currently happening in your country scares the shite out of me. Glad I don’t live there. Hopefully it is all for nothing, though not sure it will be.
One thing about Australians is that we will most likely never have civil war here, we are too apathetic on the most part. Things would have to be really really bad for people to rise up. Look at us now, we have two major parties that continue to screw us over and the dumb buggers here keep voting for them, even though we have lots of other choices.
Our political system is very different to yours, so we do have choices. Many things that happen there can’t happen here. I think making voting compulsory has been lucky for us in many ways.
Have to hope the truth will get out there one day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope so, but frankly, I doubt it. There is something inherently sinister about governments. ALL governments.
LikeLike
great points, all
LikeLike
It’s an ongoing conversation in this house and with many other people. It’s a bit of a hot topic. I think most rational people think we could solve most issues if we WANTED to solve them AND if we could talk to each other and listen to the response. We don’t talk. We shout. We aren’t heard and we don’t hear. Somewhere in that madness is probably the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Public Service.., what’s that??
LikeLike
An advertisement, but your payment is called a donation.
LikeLike