Main Stream Media is Diverse, Has Adapted to Entertainment Hyperbole
I’ve been on Twitter for a week. It’s been defining itself to me. To the users it’s a Royal Rumble cage match, and everyone is a Steve Austin or a Hulk Hogan or a Brock Lesnar, unless they prefer a more dramatic character. Less ambitiously, and maybe more accurately, the platform is a cesspool masquerading as a chess hall. It’s clear that the people on Twitter are informed. But what people on Twitter seem to like most is degrading people who’s views are different.
I’ve got some bad news. They’ve learned that abhorrent behavior from the MSM. You could replace Twitter with MSM in that first paragraph without me batting an eyelash. Right now, no one in the MSM is learning from anyone, they are all just ramming their heads into each other, convinced they won’t give an inch before they even show up. So the hosts pick a side and control the conversation, turning it into a bloodbath at first opportunity.
It makes sense. It’s about ratings. A good beat down has always been good for the ratings.
You’re wrong, you’re ignorant, you’re abhorrent and you are a disgrace to your fellow man!
That felt so good — for everyone! Except for the people who’s views just got cornered, shred and spat upon. They’re out there watching. You hurt them and you’re calling yourself a news channel. Claiming that you are the facts. But now, your logo has defined itself to them — reckless, cruel, undignified.
Entertainment isn’t rosy. It is dramatic. It creates heroes and villains. It exaggerates truths, disguises falsehoods, and mixes fact and fiction. It is a ploy.
News is not a ploy. Entertainment news is a ploy. The MSM mixes the two, and has lost credibility to ratings. It’s hard to blame them, ratings are the business. Nor can you blame the comedy shows that spin the news for an audience, never claiming to be objective. Those shows are about how people feel about what is happening. News channels are supposed to be broadcasting what is happening. Not how people feel about it. Because they mix opinion with fact without disclosure, they are asking people at home to separate the two. ‘Separate the Ploy Yourself’ should be on the screen at all times unvarnished news isn’t broadcast. Because if you don’t differentiate facts from opinion organizationally, people decide for themselves and see ‘Separate the Ploy Yourself’ when facts are being disseminated instead. Now we can’t agree on facts because you refused to differentiate facts from opinion.
Unfortunately for news publications, the separation between contributors who opine, offering context, and those who deliver unvarnished facts is an even more delicate line to tread.
Can we debate honestly? Yes, but it requires moderation that doesn’t inspire headlines with words like ‘Destroyed’. If you can’t moderate appropriately, then you have to do a much better job disclosing the difference between opinion and fact. By disclosing opinions, you offer people the chance to disagree with the news while agreeing upon facts.
My Show:
May I Concede?
Pre-Sourced debate. The participants bring the information they want to discus to a pre-show forum, cite the information they will use ahead of time, and will debate in sections. (I can’t understand how people are allowed to cite things off hand and unchecked.) Both sides should know, and have discussed their views ahead of time. No surprises, no groaning.
First section is open dialogue about the purpose of people’s leanings. What informs your view point?
After the first section each participant should be allowed time to develop their thoughts. This show is not about responding to an opponent, it is about presenting ideas.
Second section, what points do you concede to the opposing point of view? Third section, what points would you like the opposition to concede? Fourth section, what could be a compromise? At no time should anyone be interrupted unless the moderator feels a participant has broken the rules of engagement. No freelancing.
The moderator doesn’t pick winners. Viewers do. The moderator keeps parties from deviating from the facts and the structure. This is not what MSM moderators do, even the best should be talking to people from the opposite viewpoint and finding out how they failed to serve as a moderator.
