Decius wrote:

Talk to any public service leader and they will tell you not that they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.

It is becoming worse? Again, I would say, yes. In my 10 years, I've noticed all these elements evolve with ever greater momentum.

It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon. New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.

I agree with nearly everything Blair says here. And ironically, I think these comments are getting incorrectly respun by the media and bloggers.

I agree with his description of the problem, but not his solution. I think reputation of the news agency might be preferable to any sort of official regulation which would be more dangerous than doing nothing at all.

terratogen wrote:
I agree with his description of the problem, but not his solution. I think reputation of the news agency might be preferable to any sort of official regulation which would be more dangerous than doing nothing at all.

I agree that government regulation of content is problematic and likely untenable.

However, as i say in my response, the free market nature of the media, of News as a business has permitted, not through any fault in the system, but nonetheless by the nature of the system, News to become entertainment. And it is this News as Entertainment issue that Blair is responding to. I do not mean to oversimplify, because this is only one aspect of a much more complicated problem, but it's absolutely a factor.

Clearly it is necessary for people to *want* measured, reasonable and intelligent discourse. They don't right now, or, anyway, not in sufficient numbers for the market to respond. In this sense, "reputation" fails because the criteria people are using (e.g. emotional impact, reinforcement of existing opinions, a distrust of intellectualism in favor of blue-collar populism) have no relationship to the ones Blair (and I) believe should be applied.

So do we ignore the problem, until we get a critical mass big enough for the market to take notice? Is the market necessarily the mechanism we want to determine the nature of our media? Are there better models, or ways that regulation could help? Regulation does not have to be of content, but what of the business arrangements for media companies. This is very much NOT a free market solution, and is thus unpopular in the US, but we can still consider it. I'm not saying i have a solution, but I'm not sure none exists either.

Creating a thinking society starts with education.

The problem isn't _just_ that the news is for entertainment (in some ways that can be useful), but it's more a problem that people choose to stick to one news source for everything. And their interest is in things that don't matter not just because of the flash, but also because most people don't feel in control of the things that DO matter. People are largely under the impression that what they say doesn't matter and that any crisis will be taken care of by those that are in the position to do so. They might as well discuss the Sopranos rather than Iraq because people are interested in extending social commonalities rather than arguing. There is more to this than simply media. There is a huge portion of the populace that is unable to discuss things that matter because they can't let go of the truth they think they have. Too many people don't understand the nature and use of discourse. Too many people can't decide for themselves. This is a problem because we live in a Democracy.

The first thing you're taught in most educational systems is subjugation. For the most part, the rest of the grade school/high school systems are geared to make two things - Reliable worker bees AND - Soldiers. Those who try to think outside this box are nearly entirely ostracized by the system. Students have little to no control over the things that affect their education and must accept what they are fed no matter what that is. The only exceptions are extra-curricular activities like sports, drama, music and such. Listen to the loudspeaker broadcast, and that's what you hear about. It's more important to have school spirit than it is to pursue and control your own educational future or personal path. If you look at the market for media, it reflects exactly this. Our culture is the shit that it is fed, not about making better menus.

Memorize, regurgitate, and copy. At the most critical point in brain development, this is what we instill. Kids should talk back if we expect a culture that is capable of critical thought. There can be only one truth to anything and the answer is on a test somewhere. You only need one book/opinion for any given subject. Teachers can do no wrong and MUST be respected. You will be shown what is good and you will like it, or be punished. Stay in line. You eat when you're told to eat, not when you're hungry. In middle school we'll give you a choice between A and B, so long as you agree not to imagine C. We'll trust you to go where you're told too, since those lines trained you so well. In High School, you can pick your classes, so long as you fill our requirements as we know what you need. Play sports...support sports... go to the pep rally, OR ELSE. You're school is the best school, if you ever had any doubt you had better not say so out loud. Carry out your assignments exactly as ordered. Pay attention to how things work and find your place in ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]