Facts are not something decided upon, something is either true or not, complete or incomplete. Experience tells me that long-standing media have track records on their reporting whereas ones I've never encountered before may well not.
Generally if people would also (re)learn to choose less 'entertaining' or emotion-charged sources I think they'd be better served. This used to be the conservative approach, the if it's not broken why fix it school. You can get a sort of crude balance with all sorts of extremes and fanatics with simple headlines but why not have regulations requiring due diligence from licensed publishers and broadcasters, some of which we've undercut or dispensed with and some never applied to so-called electronic media. It's a bit like Uber vs. taxi companies with standard, insurance which pay taxes. Air B&B vs. hotels. Also air safety, safe roads and environmental regulation for the benefit of all, where do you draw the line at throwing out the old ways? Is a safe media something we can have or should it be wide open no rules because of the internet?
Who decides: we the people, same as in a civilization representatives we choose draw up parks on maps and budgets for public schools etc. I really don't understand the desires to open every aspect of modern life for question, surely some things have proven themselves over time and others have been shown not to work. We could have a postal delivery system throughout the depression but now some talk about snail mail's days being numbered while e-commerce keeps growing.
I remember an old Skip Williamson underground comic book where they asked a hippie with a reefer what he was going to replace 'the system' with once it was dismantled. He replied "Donald Duck". 'Twas ever thus says Mr. Natural. (sigh)
|