spreading the message

https://lemmy.world/post/44530698

The problem is, what are you supposed to do about it without violating the First Amendment?

Stop using sources that push propaganda? Support independent journalists like 404 media & use fediverse social media?

no I think I’ll just stay on tiktok and twitter. thats where my friends are after all. (this is not an attack on you specifically but your argument is used like this all the time, there are reputable alternatives to mainstream media.)

Actually, I don’t think you understood my argument.

I’m not asking about what individual members of the public are supposed to do, I’m asking what lawmakers are supposed to do. I’m talking about beyond a mere boycott, which (as you yourself just pointed out) is a losing strategy.

If i ran the administration with a majority, the first stop would be the FCC to create legislation towards free and fair reporting that actually gets enforced, with punishment based on percentage of profit instead of flat rate fines. Monopoly of information laws should also be created via the FCC.

I do not though so. here we are :P

free and fair reporting

Thats not possible as long as the media is owned by oligarchs. Everything is propaganda; the effect of choosing which aspects if a story to emphasize and what context to include is a zero-sum game as far as shaping public perception.

percentage of profit

Most media are loss makers. By funding it, oligarchs are able reinforce a system that keeps the money flowing into their bank accounts.

“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 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.

    also there is still a problem with foreign based media outlets, I don’t have a way to deal with them at this point
    I dont disagree with the idea. In fact I quite like it. As youve said though, it has flaws. We won’t ever have a perfect system and have to work with what were given. If i ever could, I would go for what youre proposing.