Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

See President John F. Kennedy’s April 27, 1961 address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/o..., and consider how JFK's words might be applicable to today's media.

Media has been in a state of 'simmer' since digital communications made everything record-able and preservable.

As user-options have increased, the pot is now, 'on the boil' since everyone's slightest slip, hiccough, sneeze, or snub can saved and manipulated for the purpose of muckraking, lawsuits, or hoaxes.

But as far as I'm concerned the converse potential is more disturbing: the expanded powers of censorship, now that all our communication is ported to one very vulnerable format.

This is the worst spin-off of the new "cancel culture" in that, since our voices are now 'products'; voices can be nullified as never before.

Netizens can be banned from Facebook, banned from Twitter, banned from Youtube; restricted from all these major platforms which --let's face it --have replaced the traditional newspaper.

Of all our modern-day media hydras, I rank this new threat to publishing and to literacy as #1.

Just one example: Amazon's ability to reach out and pull e-books back from digital devices. If a company can do this, then what can't it do?

https://tinyurl.com/yc2eu3lk
https://tinyurl.com/yuy582y9
https://tinyurl.com/yckwv4e9

Feliks wrote: "Media has been in a state of 'simmer' since digital communications made everything record-able and preservable.

As user-options have increased, the pot is now, 'on the boil' since everyone's slig..."

From a quick look at your linked articles, it appears that Kindle removed the copies because Amazon was informed that they were "bootlegged," i.e. a copyright violation. Given our copyright laws (authorized, by the way, in the original U.S. Constitution), I don't see that Amazon had any choice. As an author who publishes on Amazon, I certainly wouldn't want someone else surreptitiously making money off my books, every one of which took me years to research and write.

The third article mentions a "typo" in a Kindle edition. That is usually the fault of the publisher (who prepares the ebook editions) rather than Amazon. I have seen some Kindle editions of books, usually those long out of copyright, that are pretty terrible in that regard (probably because they merely scan the old print book, which inevitably causes errors). Amazon Kindle editions sometimes have what IT people call "known issues," the most problematic of which, in my experience, is dropping hyphens in compound words because the computer thinks the hyphen is at the end of a line. I work with an outside vendor producing the ebook in order to ensure that this no longer happens with my Kindle books, but I've seen it in other Kindle books I read. Yes, Kindle does not perfectly reproduce the print books. However, I can no longer read the small print in most print books, especially those produced by academic publishers. Additionally, one reaches a point (as I have) in which my house simply cannot accommodate any more print books. So I try to buy Kindle books whenever possible.

Feliks, I guess I'll never understand your animus against internet technology. Yes, it has its bad aspects, but it has had so many benefits for me as a researcher and writer that I would never go back to the "good old days," even if that were possible. In fact, the very platform we are on right now (Goodreads) was never even contemplated a few decades ago. So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, I saw that the reason for Amazon's action was a copyright issue; but the implications of what this company proved itself able to do, tower over the specific circumstances. The whole format is vulnerable in a way that overshadows everything.

Scholars have always been able to research, compose, and produce papers and manuscripts--even a 9th century monk with a quill pen could do so with relative impunity. But never before now have corporations/governments had the power to eradicate our words. Printed books were impossible to destroy completely; but we sure can't say the same about e-books.

In any case, here's a link to the topic of censorship on media platforms. Someone sent me a raft of such links lately; I dismissed most of them (Gizmodo, Canuexplain, BarnesReview,InfoGalactic) but as far as I can tell 'The Intercept' is acceptable for a source these days.

https://tinyurl.com/2p84a7jp

Me and technology: punsters & pundits like to joke that anyone who works behind-the-scenes in today's technology (as I do) usually despises it; and maybe that's true in my case. Excessive caution.

But believe me --there's many days in a given year --where I enter my workplace, sit down to do my job --and instead of actually getting any real work done, I spend the whole day fighting tooth-and-nail simply to preserve digital records from loss. It's a war being fought everywhere.

I never hear Amazon issue a statement someday to the effect that "We've had so many complaints about Joseph Conrad's racism that ...we're pulling all his works back from our e-platform".

Or that, "unfortunately, the United Nations' IT Department states that they've accidentally deleted the entire 12th century from all the world's libraries..."

Feliks wrote: "Scholars have always been able to research, compose, and produce papers and manuscripts--even a 9th century monk with a quill pen could do so with relative impunity.

Let’s fast forward to the twentieth century—before the internet. In those days, scholars often had to travel abroad to read primary-source material. Today, most primary-source material is available on the internet. For example, my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience was based, in part, on primary-source material that, before the internet, was available only in out-of-the-way British libraries. For the first time ever, a vast quantity of such primary-source material became available on the internet by way of Early English Books Online. This saved me a trip to England that would have required a stay there of many weeks. The expense alone of such a trip would have been prohibitive, and I would not, in any event, been able to have all that material at my fingertips as I was writing the book.

Feliks wrote: “But never before now have corporations/governments had the power to eradicate our words. Printed books were impossible to destroy completely; but we sure can't say the same about e-books.”

First of all, there’s a big difference between private corporations and government. Private corporations, no matter how big, are not subject to the First Amendment; government is. Writers who have books or other writings on the internet will always (unless they are totally negligent) keep a copy on their own computer as well as a printed copy in their possession. If, for some reason, their internet copy is destroyed (perhaps by a cyberattack), they still have their printed copy that they can republish on the internet if and when it again becomes available.

Feliks wrote: : “In any case, here's a link to the topic of censorship on media platforms. Someone sent me a raft of such links lately; I dismissed most of them (Gizmodo, Canuexplain, BarnesReview,InfoGalactic) but as far as I can tell 'The Intercept' is acceptable for a source these days.

https://tinyurl.com/2p84a7jp”

Looking at this list, I see that these items have the following categories: terrorism, crime, militias, hate speech, and violent non-state actors. Facebook is not government and is not subject to the First Amendment. They can censor anyone or anything they like—for a good or bad reason. In fact, to remove their right to censor violent and hate speech on their platform would be to violate their First Amendment rights. As a responsible business, that is what they should do. If they had done so in the months before January 6, 2021, perhaps the insurrection and assault on the U.S. Capitol would never have occurred. I have absolutely no problem with Facebook taking such action.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift . . . . Digital and other records are being preserved more than such records have been preserved at any time in human history. You state that you fight against the destruction of digital records. Of course, I don’t know the specifics of what you are talking about, and I don’t expect you to give us those specifics. Perhaps you are right to object, but I don’t see this to be a worldwide problem. In some ways, we have too much information, not too little. But, again, if I understood the specifics of what you are saying, I might agree with you regarding those kinds of situations.

This leads me to my final point. Even assuming, arguendo, that your complaints about the internet are legitimate, what would you do about it? Would you have government shut down the internet? They’ve pretty much tried to do that in authoritarian countries around the world, but only in the totalitarian state of North Korea has the government been mostly successful in this endeavor. Is this what you want? Perhaps we should ask the Dear Leader to take over the United States and reduce it to the kind of country North Korea is. I am currently watching “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which portrays a theocratic, totalitarian society. This series raises the old question of the Cold War: is it better to be red (Communist) than dead? In this case, the “red” is the color of the “handmaids,” who are consigned to be involuntary child-bearers for the male, theocratic, patriarchal elite, while the entire society is in a regimented and color-coded totalitarian regime. Needless to say, the internet is not available. And, of course, women are not allowed to read in any event.

This January 21, 2022 op-ed explains how Fox News has invented a false meme that the Biden administration is labeling parents “domestic terrorists”: https://wapo.st/3AqrVjF. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)

I feel like this thread could grow very large. Seems like there's hundreds of media ethics stories from around the globe, on a daily basis.

My favorite media 'watchdog' is Jeff Cohen.
https://jeffcohen.org/

Alan, your rhetorical question above --I haven't circled back to it because my antipathy towards tech can come across like crazed Luddite rantings and be very off-putting to some people.

I do have some ideas about how things could be different in this day and age but, I don't want to try anyone's patience.

Feliks wrote: "I do have some ideas about how things could be different in this day and age but, I don't want to try anyone's patience."

Well, that's my question. Please feel free to state what you would do differently, if you wish to state it in this forum. It confuses me that you rant and rave against technology but don't say how, concretely, things could and should be different. This is the disconnect I experience when I try to understand what you are saying.

Very well, Alan. I'll bear this invitation in mind.

But I too, experience confusion (over here, on my side) whenever the matter arises because the first thing I usually discover is that the parties I'm chatting with on the subject don't see that there are any problems.

That's usually the first stage of pushback. So I wind up making a big, long list of modern catastrophes we grapple with today, and the reaction is mild puzzlement.

It's hard to get a true dialogue started under such conditions, and I merely sound as if I'm 'disgruntled'.

Interesting anecdote from my personal life. Recently, an old crony of mine got back in touch with me after several years' hiatus. We caught each other up on our doings.

It turns out that one reason he was out-of-touch for so long is that two years ago his fancy smart-phone was "sim-swapped" aka "sim-jacked". Horrible new term for a horrible new phenomenon.

His phone went dead in his hand one night, while he was playing on it. In the next few minutes, his entire life savings ($100,000) was at risk. He had blithely converted it to 'digital' currency. He accesses his bank by phone and email.

That nightmarish evening he beat the hackers by just seconds in protecting it. But it hung by a hair. He spent the next two days scrambling to outwit them; the battle really lasted 4-6 months, as they continued to go after it. He thinks he is safe now, but he can't quite be sure.

Inexplicably, my pal's gone right back to the same lifestyle he had before, even though this type of 'cyber-crime' is spiraling unchecked all around the world. He has a new smart-phone, of course.

https://tinyurl.com/y9wf6tbx

So here's a cultural divide between myself and many other people today. To me, the risk my pal just experienced is not worth suffering for any reason whatsoever.

What counter-argument can anyone offer me after hearing this tale? Frankly I wouldn't even bother. I wouldn't waste my time; it'd be like arguing with a heroin addict about his heroin addiction; or debating a child about candy.

I don't know what to say to someone who thinks risking-their-life-savings is an acceptable modern mishap, fully compensated by a childish craving for a little hand-held electronic playtoy.

Feliks wrote: "Very well, Alan. I'll bear this invitation in mind.

But I too, experience confusion (over here, on my side) whenever the matter arises because the first thing I usually discover is that the parti..."

Thanks, Feliks, for the interesting, albeit scary, account. This is why I refuse to have any banking or other financial information on my phone.

I also refuse to invest in any cryptocurrency. You probably have heard of the crash this week of the cryptocurrency market, causing untold numbers of investors very substantial losses. I figured that was coming, though we'll see whether the cryptocurrency market recovers.

Morale Low at the Front.

I'm preparing to re-locate; and in consequence of where I may be yonderin' to, I'm forced to shed my trove of printed books. Some I've had since just a kid.

Nowadays there's extremely few places where used books wind up except in the garbage. I have to hunt for someplace to donate them to.

Wherever they wind up, I know they'll be regarded as curiosities. Antiques. Slow. Outdated. Outmoded. Manually-operated.

There's a semi-annual "book swap" organized at my workplace. Keyword: semi-annual, aka when no one has anything else better to do except wander down memory lane on lunch break. Looking for free comic books.

I've attended a few 'book-swaps' at the job site, in years past, and seen utter listlessness in co-workers as they drift down the aisles. No excitement. It's apparent in their eyes. Printed, bound paper tomes, are utterly valueless. [They're sooo heavy! Why are they so BIG? I can't even fit this one in my pocket! ]

This is the mindset I've dreaded encountering for a long time. Me, I'm devastated at giving up my book collection. And Everyone-Else-In-The-World is mystified as to why.

Capitalist Realism 1
Feliks 0

There must be some kind of Kohlberg Scale when it comes to de-literacy in civilization.

The next malebolge one level down from where we now reside, is when you discuss a controversy with someone, and to settle the point in your favor you lead your opponent to an authoritative reference source in your local library. "What's that?" he asks. "Where are we? What is this place?"

An American friend of mine re-located to Australia in the past few years. She tells me that if you purchase e-books from a vendor in the USA (storing them on your e-reader) but then you switch your e-book account to a new provider in a new country, some of your books might not be similarly for sale there. Result: a significant portion of the e-book library she thought she owned, just vanished permanently from her device.

Twice in one day, same topic. A two-fer. Apologies for this candor.

But here's what I predict is going to happen: the internet foments 'presentism' as bad as Nazism. Soon, no one will trust history simply because it isn't 'now'. Because it's not 'current'. The internet is fast; that swiftness means vindication.

I was just debating with someone on a nature/environment website --about children's education down through the times--and I happened to mention a series of beloved books in America in the 1920s.

The response I got was basically: "but that's racist literature. People in the 1920s were racists, don't you know that?"

So we're truly arriving at Bradbury's "451". It's just as Orwell described. Dictatorships can re-program proletarian brains with information galore. Only essentially human factors (empathy, memory, history, emotions) hold out.

SOLUTIONS JOURNALISM

This evening, I watched a remarkable segment of PBS News’ Hours “Brief but Spectacular Take” on solutions journalism by journalist and author David Bornstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MHdL.... Bornstein’s point is well expressed in the preface to his book How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas:

Is it possible to eradicate poverty? Extend health care to every corner of the world? Ensure that every child in every country receives a good education? These visions may seem beyond reach today, but the stories in this book reveal that we can, in fact, change the world in ways that seem unbelievable. There is a hidden history unfolding today: an emerging landscape of innovators advancing solutions that have the potential to transform life around the globe.

We hear little about them. Indeed, most of the news we receive focuses on the troubles in the world. Clearly, we face a cascade of challenges and dangers at home and abroad—and we need to know about them. But while we are inundated with stories of violence, corruption and incompetence we hear relatively little about the struggles and successes of the people who are advancing positive changes. The ratio of problem-focused information to solution-focused information in the media is completely out of balance. It distorts reality; it is dispiriting; and it deprives people of the knowledge they need to properly assess risks and recognize opportunities.

I was totally unaware of Bornstein and his solutions journalism (see also https://www.solutionsjournalism.org/a...) until now. If I had known about his efforts, I would have included a discussion about them in the sections on “Enlightened Capitalism” (pp. 105–6) and “Media Ethics” (pp. 127–30) in my book Reason and Human Ethics (2022).

See Jennifer Rubin’s September 19, 2022 column titled “Trump’s frightening rally in Ohio shows the media still doesn’t get it” (https://wapo.st/3S3WZgY). (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)

TV news media guidelines written by Jim Lehrer, he of the team of Robert MacNeil & Jim Lehrer (aka 'MacNeil & Lehrer')
and intended to characterize their program, the 'PBS NewsHour'.

"Do nothing I cannot defend."
"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."
"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."
"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."
"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."
"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."
"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."
"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."
"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."
"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_New...

Feliks wrote: "TV news media guidelines written by Jim Lehrer, he of the team of Robert MacNeil & Jim Lehrer (aka 'MacNeil & Lehrer')
and intended to characterize their program, the
'PBS NewsHour'.



"Do no..."

Thanks, Feliks. These are good points. CNN is currently running a documentary about Rupert Murdoch, who, among other things, founded Fox News. So far, I've only seen about 10 minutes of it, but I am aware that Murdoch's media empire, especially including Fox News, routinely violates these precepts.

See this November 9, 2022 Washington Post article titled “Biggest loser of the midterm elections? The media”: https://wapo.st/3WUE1Mq. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)

The article points out the massive failure of the polls and journalists (whether of the Left or Right) to correctly predict the outcome of the November 8, 2022 midterm elections. Most of them predicted some kind of “red wave” (Republican landslide). The problem is that it is almost impossible for polls to be accurate under current political circumstances. But the media should have used more critical thinking in their polls and in drawing conclusions from the polls. I myself detected such defects during the weeks before the elections.

Now, of course, as it stands today, the Republicans may end up with a slight majority in the US House of Representatives, and they have a slight possibility of getting a majority in the Senate. But this is far from the almost universally predicted “red wave” that was the conventional wisdom during the last month before the elections. Much of the media predicted that the issues of abortion and democracy (threatened by Trumpism) had lost their cachet in the weeks before the election, and the electorate would turn on the Democrats because of historical patterns, the economy, crime, and immigration. That glib prediction turned out not to be supported by the facts on the ground.

What, you might ask, does this have to do with ethics? The answer, in my view, is that reason and critical thinking are essential to ethics, as explained in my book Reason and Human Ethics.

This December 12, 2022 Washington Post op-ed (https://wapo.st/3ByXSYz) by Greg Sargent is titled “Musk’s ugly attack on Fauci shows how right-wing info warfare works.” This piece explains how Musk and, by extension, Twitter have become exhibits in the sharp decline of media ethics in some ideological corners. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)

'The Role of Screen Size in User Experience of Media Content'

A survey of findings (at the time) of how different-sized view-screens and monitor-types, affects our ability to absorb and retain information delivered by those platforms.

https://tinyurl.com/5bcymstc
(hosted on ResearchGate.com)

Food for thought, concerning the future of news journalism. I don't know why it occurred to me to look into this, but sure enough it is becoming a trend.

https://tinyurl.com/3psd3zav

No more reporters in newsrooms, everything outsourced to free-lance journalists working from home.

Less costly, sure. But what does it mean for truth in reporting?

Feliks wrote: "Food for thought, concerning the future of news journalism. I don't know why it occurred to me to look into this, but sure enough it is becoming a trend.

https://tinyurl.com/3psd3zav
No more repo..."

Maureen Dowd commented on a similar development a few months ago. She didn't like it. I don't know enough about the practice of media to have a strong opinion. But I'm confused about this article's obsession with "brands." It seems like they consider journalists mere opportunities for brand promotion. The total merging of advertising and journalism is taken for granted. I find this more alarming than the rise of free-lance journalism as such. Truth will give way to the highest bidder. This is the ultimate subversion of media and media ethics.

Am I missing something?

Yes, I wondered about that too. My guess is that because the article is published in Forbes, that's the latent context. Probably present in many of their write-ups. Similar to "BusinessInsider" and "Inc." magazine, the Forbes audience is Big Business; and businessmen frame the world in terms of 'advertising blocks'.

Feliks wrote: "Yes, I wondered about that too. My guess is that because the article is published in Forbes, that's the latent context. Probably found in many of their write-ups. Similar to "BusinessInsider" and "..."

The more I think about it, the scarier it sounds. On this view, media has everything to do with brands but nothing to do with truth. I didn't realize it had gone this far. No wonder the country is in such a mess.

Indeed. Subscription-based media models are really all around us these days. Youtube, Facebook, and all the rest; are all tied to people's 'profiles'. It's Andy Warhol's famous prediction amplified exponentially.

Thus, it's doubly disturbing to hear Forbes' reasoning that an audience will probably "follow a free-lance journalist because he has established himself as a charismatic media figure", in his own right. He will 'have his brand' on the news he reports on.

But in that case, I wonder: what free-lancers will he hire to do his legwork while he is marketing himself? If he's playing Sam Donaldson all day long, who is really doing the fact-checking? Someone in Mumbai, India?

Feliks wrote: "Indeed. Subscription-based media models are really all around us these days. Youtube, Facebook, and all the rest; are all tied to people's 'profiles'. It's Andy Warhol's famous prediction amplified..."

I was born in the wrong century. But for slavery, Native extermination, theocracy, lack of helpful technology, etc. etc., I would have preferred being born in the eighteenth century. But those are a lot of "But fors." Media (printed newspapers etc.) were crazy even in the early US republic. However, capitalism was not so extreme and so rampant. That transition probably occurred with the Industrial Revolution.

This fascinating article on the current Hollywood writer's & actor's strike, brings out more details of the technological basis of the dispute.

https://tinyurl.com/yxvvpsjt

This post is a fork from Alan's post #71, (July 21), found under 'The Philosophy of Capitalism' discussion topic here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Feliks wrote: "This fascinating article on the current Hollywood writer's & actor's strike, brings out more details of the technological basis of the dispute.

https://tinyurl.com/yxvvpsjt

This post is a fork fr..."

The opening paragraphs of this article appear to ignore the fact that the tort of unauthorized use of name or likeness is well established in the United States and elsewhere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona... (scroll down to see the discussion of such law in the United States and further down to see how it plays out in California). This is first-year law school: Torts 101. So, unless I am missing something, the possibility that AI will result in the theft of a person’s name or likeness is nonexistent. However, the other ills mentioned in this article may, in fact, be problematic.

Good info. I barely know what a tort is. But --in this case, isn't the issue not 'theft' but rather one of pay scale? Since the performer signs a contract for the use of their likeness?

Feliks wrote: "Good info. I barely know what a tort is. But --in this case, isn't the issue not 'theft' but rather one of pay scale? Since the performer signs a contract for the use of their likeness?"

I'm referring to Stevie Nelson's concerns as reported in the first few paragraphs of the article. Contrary to her fears, no one can use her image or likeness without her permission for it. If she signs a contract waiving her rights, for little or no money, that is a different problem, which raises other legal questions, covered in Contracts 101 (under the subjects of "adhesion contracts" and "consideration").

Let me add that I had a love-hate relationship with law school during the years I attended it.

Lately, I have been thinking and reading a lot about civics education. Perhaps part of it should be a basic introduction to legal concepts: first-year law school compressed into, say, 2-4 weeks of study/teaching. But, as my father once said abstractly (referring to me and another employee of his paint store who liked to shoot the bull on his dime), "There are some dreamers around here too!"

Trouble in Paradise

See this July 24, 2024 New York Times article titled “The Secret Battle for the Future of the Murdoch Empire”: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/bu.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for thirty days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)

About Alan and Fliks said, please comment what i said from my book Global disorder and about Media:
MEDIA LIABILITY
In the course of all these themes, from political regimes to fanaticism, crime, social behaviors and their deviations, a clear conclusion emerges: the importance of education and civic training as fundamental tools in mitigating these problems, along with solutions to mitigate social and economic inequalities. Policymakers should focus on promoting these values to create fairer and more resilient societies.
Media activity plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing social behaviors. However, today, many argue that the media needs to be profoundly restructured to promote diversity, knowledge and prevent the so-called "dumbing down of peoples". Here are some considerations on this topic:
Promoting diversity of opinions and perspectives: The media should provide a balanced platform for a variety of opinions and worldviews. This includes ensuring the representation of ethnic minorities, marginalized groups, and different political ideologies. However, the exaggerated coverage of certain social deviations or unnatural behaviors has two negative consequences: it can create in viewers the idea that the world is "crazy" and create in children and young people false references about valid and useful models for society.
Educational and informative content: Media should devote more time and resources to educational and informative content, addressing important issues, explaining complex concepts, and providing in-depth analysis on current events.
Combating disinformation and fake news: It is crucial to implement strict measures to verify the facts and combat the spread of false and misleading information. The media have a responsibility to be reliable sources of information.
Fostering media literacy: The media should invest in media literacy programs to help audiences critically evaluate the information they consume, understand the methods of manipulation used, and recognize underlying biases.
Reduction of sensationalism and superficial entertainment: Although entertainment has its place in the media, it is important that it does not overlap with factual and relevant information, much less when it reaches completely disproportionate dimensions. The media should avoid sensationalism, fanaticism, and celebrity cult in favor of more substantial content.
Increased airtime for important issues: The media should devote more time to serious and relevant issues, such as politics, economics, health, and the environment, rather than focusing solely on light entertainment and sensationalist news.
Effective regulation: Stricter regulation of the media is needed to ensure that they meet high ethical standards and do not promote hate speech, misinformation, or harmful content.
Encouraging independent and local production: Media should promote independent and local production to ensure a variety of voices and perspectives, avoiding excessive concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few.
Transparency and accountability: The media must be transparent about their interests and sources of funding, thus ensuring their independence and credibility.
Social networks, full of misinformation, hatred and fanaticism, increasingly represent bases of discord and social and political cleavages. On the other hand, we find that access to information and news on the internet is flooded with advertisements of all kinds, including overlay systems that do not allow you to ignore them and continue reading the information without first having to click and accept to read the advertising content, representing a violation of the rights, interests and preferences of users. There is a great civil responsibility here on the part of telecommunications operators in order to create systems that block the dissemination of fakes, "interstitial" ads and other advertising, according to the preferences of each user. The injection of advertisements is such that the use of ad blockers on computers and especially mobile phones is very ineffective.
In short, a restructuring of the media to promote diversity, knowledge, and combat what many call the "dumbing down of the public" is essential to ensure an informed, engaged, and resilient society to misinformation.

All,

Merely revisited this thread tonight in search of the Forbes Mag link I'd posted a while ago (trends in journalism).

Didn't expect to see my name --please recuse me from any larger sphere of discussion.

Feliks wrote: "please recuse me from any larger sphere of discussion"

Feliks, I'm not sure what "please recuse me from any larger sphere of discussion" means or even what your entire post means. You can always delete your own posts if you so wish.

re: msg #35

Oh --I just meant that I didn't wish to address Ricardo's points made in msg#33. I saw that he invited me to chat in connection with his remarks. But I don't think that would be productive since our views on technology are so antithetical.

Ricardo wrote at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... (#33, October 6, 2024): "About Alan and Fliks said, please comment what i said from my book Global disorder and about Media

Ricardo: Because Goodreads changed its notification procedures (no longer notifying me via email of new posts), I didn’t see your above-referenced post 33 until today. As I mentioned earlier, I will refrain from commenting on your book until I have actually read it. I generally agree with what you said in your post insofar as the ethical obligations of media are concerned. Should government be involved in such regulation, and, if so, how? Here in the USA, we have a First Amendment (https://constitution.congress.gov/con...) to our Constitution that prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .” There are some exceptions to this principle in the long history of US constitutional law. Until I have the opportunity to read your book (which I plan to do sometime in the next few months) and until I work out my own exact position on this precise issue for my forthcoming book Reason and Human Government, I will not express an opinion regarding any exceptions that may or may not apply to governmental regulation of speech in this context.

Rising gambling addiction [adult gambling] --among smartphone-enabled youth

https://nypost.com/2025/04/22/us-news...

Latest wrinkle in the new landscape of 'outsourced news' (content 'creators', content 'farms', & 'headline aggregator' websites)

'Pink-slime journalism' and news 'mirages'

Unfortunately this is the kind of unprofessional practice which all the latest emerging 'algorithms', will very easily lend themselves to support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink-sl...

This will probably sound like a gag or a 'put-on', but --apparently -- it is a legit phenomenon: the so-called, 'Negative Flynn' effect.

Researchers around the world are seeing a global decline in mental ability.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...

You can find the story being tracked in medical journals

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...

...or by any major news outlet including the New York Times.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/artic...

Anyway, here is an except from the PsychologyToday the link to which I provided above:

One prominent theory is that the decline isn’t genetic but environmental—a reflection of how modern life is reshaping our brains. Today’s children grow up immersed in a world of screens, scrolling, and superficial content. Quick dopamine hits from social media and 30-second videos have replaced deep reading and problem-solving. Educational systems, pressured to meet standardized benchmarks, often "teach to the test" rather than nurture independent thinking.

Even daily digital distractions have an impact: Studies suggest that just checking your phone or email can temporarily reduce IQ by up to 10 points. If that’s the cognitive cost of a ping, what is the cost of a life lived online?

We’ve also lost traditional filters of intellectual quality. Before social media, books and journalism underwent rigorous editing. Now, content floods our feeds without any such gatekeeping. As a result, many people are absorbing the thoughts not of experts or educators but of influencers, bloggers, and pseudocelebrities—some of whom couldn’t pass a high school exam.

As the saying goes: We are what we eat. And in the digital age, we are what we consume with our eyes and ears.

Feliks wrote: "This will probably sound like a gag or a "put-on" but --apparently -- it is a legit phenomenon: the so-called, 'Negative Flynn' effect.

Researchers around the world are seeing a global decline in..."

I've been wondering for some time (long before AI) whether the human species is undergoing some sort of devolution (retrograde evolution). I watched a movie about this a year or two ago, but I can't remember the name of it.

Alan wrote: "Feliks wrote: "This will probably sound like a gag or a "put-on" but --apparently -- it is a legit phenomenon: the so-called, 'Negative Flynn' effect.

Researchers around the world are seeing a gl..."

The movie is "Idiocracy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy). Read the Wikipedia article: the movie is fantastic. Other films along this line are "Don't Look Up" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t...) and, of course, "The Planet of the Apes," both of which were great.

And also, of course, the classic Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Dystopia, here we come!

re: msg #41, #42, #43 (AEJ)

Indeed, Alan. Not sure if you remember this television commercial which asked consumers,

"Is it live ...or is it Memorex?"

Seems quaint and harmless all this time later. But I was never convinced by the marketing even when it first began to emerge. The whole thing just 'felt wrong' from the start.

Now we realize more clearly than ever before, where it all leads.

No matter how lush the duplication or the simulation, Americans simply aren't meant to gaze into artificial glass & plastic monitors all day.

Any kind of 'media portal' --no matter the stylish manufacture --leads to shallowness; if allowed to displace all other form of dialogue and discourse.

Part of our American heritage is to question; to doubt; to weigh; and to challenge what we are told. We're supposed to think for ourselves.

Maybe it was never formally codified anywhere --but cynicism and pragmatism are part of the American spirit.

Jefferson, Lincoln, Mencken; W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington; John Harvard; Horace Mann; Horatio Alger; Eugene Debs; Horace Greeley; John Greenleaf Whittier, George Washington Carver; Daniel Webster, Clarence Darrow; Thoreau; Henry George ...all strove to instill perspicacity in us.

Passively receiving and accepting any information spoon-fed to us, should always rankle in our nostrils.

Not surprisingly, I remain the only advocate of these views, in my modern & hi-tech workplace. Some of my colleagues regard me as a weirdo.

I've resigned myself to being labeled a Luddite and a technophobe. I've even lost some friends over this issue.

So it's a rueful feeling for me to have played Tiresias in this case; and to live to see my prediction vindicated.

Feliks wrote: "re: msg #41, #42, #43 (AEJ)

Indeed, Alan. Not sure if you remember this television commercial which asked consumers,

"Is it live ...or is it Memorex?"

Seems quaint and harmless all this time l..."

Although I sometimes think you go to an extreme regarding your technophobia, what you say is mostly true. Much of technology can be used for good or for ill. The latest development, AI, is an example of this.

I learned long ago not to be overly concerned about the fact that my views are not the popular ones. As one of my professors once said in class in the late 1960s, "If they want to go to hell, let them go." Socrates tried to persuade people to lead rational and ethical lives. They thanked him by trying and executing him. Plato, his most famous student, was, properly understood, more circumspect. Aristotle was somewhat more explicit, but by then the Athenian polis was, for all practical purposes, a relic of the past. The United States may be facing the same fate.

re: msg #45 AEJ

Agreed. Yes, perhaps I go too far. If so, that's simply a personality/psychology issue. But I'll return your anecdote (msg #45) with this one.

In college, I changed my major-course of study several times before I reached grad school, where I changed it several times more.

Half of my coursework wound up in ecology and half in social work. One benefit of this was that I was exposed to a wide variety of 'elective' classes.

One class happened to be 'environmental design'. I was in with a group of aspiring architects & engineers.

The topic that semester was 'environmental justice' for third-world communities.

Specifically the professor asked us to design low-cost ways to save primitive villages from flooding.

Each student's plan must be able to be implemented without any expensive government assistance. My classmates came up with some wonderful designs.

Then --near the end of the 15 week course --the instructor called in a colleague of his from the working world.

This friend of his was a professional engineer from a big, hi-tech, private-sector firm.

He had some worthwhile remarks to make as he evaluated our ideas but --as the day wore on --we could see he was growing more and more incredulous.

As each of us explained our designs he became increasingly dismissive; even defensive.

He repeatedly reminded us of his firm's international reputation and hi-tech expertise.

Admittedly, some of our proposals were rather day-dreamy.

But his surprise at what he saw us proposing was almost comical. He gaped at us; he rolled-his-eyes.

Nothing he saw, fit his training or his experience; so he brushed it all away.

Very likely, he had come to see students training in the same manner he had been trained.

In his mind, he knew the right way to save communities. The way his company managed big projects was the only way.

Now, I respect the voice of experience, but ...this professional's mind was patently "closed off". He was a 'man of one book'.

He took an entrenched stance in the matter, even though Some of our designs were drawn from ancient Phoenicia or ancient China -- proven successful by history.

But since none of this creativity matched his work-a-day experience, he waved it all aside.

If a community was in danger of flooding, what they must do is hire his company to swoop in and build a multi-million dollar spillway. Period.

The meeting was a valuable lesson for us students, in more ways than one.

Feliks wrote: "re: msg #45 AEJ

Agreed. Yes, perhaps I go too far. If so, that's simply a personality/psychology issue. But I'll return your anecdote (msg #45) with this one.

In college, I changed my major-cours..."

Thank you for the enlightening account.