Here's what you get when ...

[Gary Childress]

News consumers are the driving force behind the news they (want to) hear.

https://www.vox.com/2023/2/18/23604076/ ... on-lawsuit

So here are some topics for discussion.

1. Should news outlets cater to the tastes or wants of their viewers? Or should they be more concerned with accuracy or objectivity?

2. If the former is more profitable, is it ethical to do so?

And finally,

3. Assuming this is a problem, then how could this problem be addressed in such a way as to prevent disinformation of the public in the future?

And let's be mindful that it's not just Fox News that behaves this way. Probably a significant number of major media sources are reluctant to offend either their audience or their advertisers. In short, if you're only looking to strike it rich in the information industry, then you're probably doing truth a disservice. (Or am I wrong about the above?)

[Agent Smith]

Indeed, but what are the media's options?

[Gary Childress]

but what are the media's options?

In the past, I would have speculated that socialism or some kind of failsafe systemic change would be the best answer. However, after much back and forth with Immanuel Can and much deliberation intermittently between, I'm not sure that is realistic or possible. Maybe the best we can hope for is news reporters or journalists who aren't willing to succumb to greed, at least not at the expense of truth or objectivity, people who will stand up against greedy CEOs or Editors in the name of public service and not just public exploitation (because ultimately sucking money out of the public and giving lies and nonsense in return is nothing short of exploitation or doing the public a disservice). I mean, maybe that's all we can hope for in a realistic way--for each individual to take a principled stand? For each individual to govern his or her own conduct.

Of course, if that is the case then a clear and unequivocal message ought to be sent that greed does not ultimately pay off. Because if it does, then we're simply rewarding bad acting, literally promoting or else condoning it. We must therefore not reward it and clamp down (within a reasonable degree) on those in the service of the public who violate the trust of their clients.

Those are my initial thoughts. What are yours?

[Agent Smith]

but what are the media's options?

In the past, I would have speculated that socialism or some kind of failsafe systemic change would be the best answer. However, after much back and forth with Immanuel Can and much deliberation intermittently between, I'm not sure that is realistic or possible. Maybe the best we can hope for is news reporters or journalists who aren't willing to succumb to greed, at least not at the expense of truth or objectivity, people who will stand up against greedy CEOs or Editors in the name of public service and not just public exploitation (because ultimately sucking money out of the public and giving lies and nonsense in return is nothing short of exploitation or doing the public a disservice). I mean, maybe that's all we can hope for in a realistic way--for each individual to take a principled stand? For each individual to govern his or her own conduct.

Of course, if that is the case then a clear and unequivocal message ought to be sent that greed does not ultimately pay off. Because if it does, then we're simply rewarding bad acting, literally promoting or else condoning it. We must therefore not reward it and clamp down (within a reasonable degree) on those in the service of the public who violate the trust of their clients.

Those are my initial thoughts. What are yours?

But greed does pay off. It always has and probably will for the foreseeable future. Remember black money doesn't show up in the books. So ...

[Lacewing]

News consumers are the driving force behind the news they (want to) hear.

...how could this problem be addressed in such a way as to prevent disinformation of the public in the future?

I think it will take a steady, growing stream of individuals and organizations financially supporting news sources that are truly balanced... so that such sources can AT LEAST continue to exist as a choice. People who are thoroughly intoxicated with dramatic disinformation aren't likely to let go of their drug. But maybe when enough people choose balance and truth, delusional extremism will be fully disgraced for what it is.

My fantasy is that there should be a Truth Platform (without affiliations, funded by grass roots truth-seekers) publicly televised around the clock (on free TV) that tells the truth about all of the disinformation we are fed. Making such truth-checking so easily and visually accessible (and compelling) might help disrobe the liars and scammers so that humankind shifts to demand more truth and accountability... especially from leaders and communication outlets.

[Gary Childress]

but what are the media's options?

In the past, I would have speculated that socialism or some kind of failsafe systemic change would be the best answer. However, after much back and forth with Immanuel Can and much deliberation intermittently between, I'm not sure that is realistic or possible. Maybe the best we can hope for is news reporters or journalists who aren't willing to succumb to greed, at least not at the expense of truth or objectivity, people who will stand up against greedy CEOs or Editors in the name of public service and not just public exploitation (because ultimately sucking money out of the public and giving lies and nonsense in return is nothing short of exploitation or doing the public a disservice). I mean, maybe that's all we can hope for in a realistic way--for each individual to take a principled stand? For each individual to govern his or her own conduct.

Of course, if that is the case then a clear and unequivocal message ought to be sent that greed does not ultimately pay off. Because if it does, then we're simply rewarding bad acting, literally promoting or else condoning it. We must therefore not reward it and clamp down (within a reasonable degree) on those in the service of the public who violate the trust of their clients.

Those are my initial thoughts. What are yours?

But greed does pay off. It always has and probably will for the foreseeable future. Remember black money doesn't show up in the books. So ...

Lying, stealing and cheating can pay off in the short term, however, I don't believe a person can build a solid foundation for their life around them. In the end we mostly get something similar to what we gave. Maybe it's God or maybe all I can say of it is to call it "karma", but I've witnessed it to various extents in my own life and in that of others around me. When all the proverbial chips are counted, I believe the real winners are going to be those who played the game of life reasonably fair, honestly, and honorably. I don't think I have any scientifically verifiable evidence that is reproducible on demand in a laboratory so maybe it's an article of faith but I think it's an article that is worth living by. I mean, we'll see how life pans out for us and others around us as we go along. Call it my "life hypothesis" and I am a living breathing experimental device toward its verification.