“A perfect world is not possible so we should do nothing”
Your comment is propaganda thats trying to show the negative aspect of regulating a medium when the only thing to be gained from giving this viewpoint without a solution is defeatism.
and if you think Fox News is losing money I have a bridge to sell you.
Who said we should do nothing? We should recognize all reporting is biased, and democratize media so its biased towards us, the working class.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine just means for every hour of “we need to invade Iraq/n because they’re evil brown muslims” we get an hour of “We need to invade Iraq/n because the people yearn for freedom”
So youre saying the same thing I said, except you think its different because instead of saying the FCC you said the working class.
Do you have an actual working implementation of how media can be democratized by the working class? Are we voting on if news is true? How would this work in practice? I am not going to completely dismiss your argument but I am failing to see the vision.
Yes, nationalize billionaire-owned media, set up oversight boards appointed by the media workers and state. Restrict salaries of pundits, writers, editors etc such that they can’t exceed the median income.
We’ve seen what the FCC trying to implement fairness looks like. Requiring two perspectives, both aligned against the interests of the workers, wasn’t productive.
But what I said is practically the same thing. The difference is I chose to say we should re-utilize the FCC (which is what theyre there for) instead of creating a whole new thing for this. I did not say to bring back the bullshit that was fairness doctrine. I did not mention nationalizing media, because while I think there should be a nationalized news source, you can’t trust a Trump-like figure not to go in and take complete control of a single nationalized news source. In a perfect world I would agree with you entirely. We do not live in one.
who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual?
yes
shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
You’re looking to slippery slope this into saying this would lead to a system in which only state approved viewpoints should be shown. which is what we currently have. so, what is your idea?
you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.
this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.
my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.
So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?
I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.
implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:
Designate any newspaper, TV/YouTube/telegram channel, blog, Instagram account, etc with more than a 100k monthly views/impressions/followers/whatever as a public faced media.
Make the only allowed ownership form of these media outlets something like worker cooperatives.
Somewhat limit the ownership stakes so that no single member of this cooperative can make all the decisions.
The cooperative should have public financial records so the anyone can see where the revenue comes from.
This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement.
What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.
governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual
Yes, thats the FCC, they did that historically, and required equal time/space for both democratic candidates and republican candidates. Naturally that meant channels would count up every 3 second clip and replay, and surrogates/pundits didn’t count at all.
“A perfect world is not possible so we should do nothing”
Your comment is propaganda thats trying to show the negative aspect of regulating a medium when the only thing to be gained from giving this viewpoint without a solution is defeatism.
and if you think Fox News is losing money I have a bridge to sell you.
Who said we should do nothing? We should recognize all reporting is biased, and democratize media so its biased towards us, the working class.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine just means for every hour of “we need to invade Iraq/n because they’re evil brown muslims” we get an hour of “We need to invade Iraq/n because the people yearn for freedom”
So youre saying the same thing I said, except you think its different because instead of saying the FCC you said the working class.
Do you have an actual working implementation of how media can be democratized by the working class? Are we voting on if news is true? How would this work in practice? I am not going to completely dismiss your argument but I am failing to see the vision.
Yes, nationalize billionaire-owned media, set up oversight boards appointed by the media workers and state. Restrict salaries of pundits, writers, editors etc such that they can’t exceed the median income.
We’ve seen what the FCC trying to implement fairness looks like. Requiring two perspectives, both aligned against the interests of the workers, wasn’t productive.
But what I said is practically the same thing. The difference is I chose to say we should re-utilize the FCC (which is what theyre there for) instead of creating a whole new thing for this. I did not say to bring back the bullshit that was fairness doctrine. I did not mention nationalizing media, because while I think there should be a nationalized news source, you can’t trust a Trump-like figure not to go in and take complete control of a single nationalized news source. In a perfect world I would agree with you entirely. We do not live in one.
who do you expect is the person deciding what reporting is free and fair? is there a governmental regulatory body, created with the purpose of determining if the reporting was factual? shouldn’t the efficiency of this process be improved via pre-approving any media by this regulator to avoid fines?
yes
You’re looking to slippery slope this into saying this would lead to a system in which only state approved viewpoints should be shown. which is what we currently have. so, what is your idea?
you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.
this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.
my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.
So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?
I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.
implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:
This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement. What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.
also there is still a problem with foreign based media outlets, I don’t have a way to deal with them at this point
Yes, thats the FCC, they did that historically, and required equal time/space for both democratic candidates and republican candidates. Naturally that meant channels would count up every 3 second clip and replay, and surrogates/pundits didn’t count at all.
what you are proposing is basically censorship, and state censorship is much easier to consolidate than the current billionaire-based one