Let me imagine this future of media-sponsored activism for a minute. It’s 2020, and another presidential election is rolling around. Facebook has discussion groups for candidates’ economic proposals, and users everywhere have joined groups that do real work to garner support for those proposals in Congress. Meanwhile, the New York Times has an initiative form after every front page op-ed, perhaps “Sign here to let the mayor know you support ending tax breaks for religious institutions”. Finally, Salon has really had enough of gun violence, and is organizing lively protests outside the offices of the NRA.
Assuming features like this were implemented, I’d be terrified. I’d be praying (and, let’s hope, still legally) that few people used them. The last thing I want is for my news sources to give me anything other than well-written, evidence-based, fact-checked journalism. In the future I just imagined, Facebook controls political discussion. Their ad dollars would be supporting real legislation, and guess what kind of ads you’d see? The New York Times’ senior editor becomes a legislator in the practical sense — yes, we support this, no we don’t support that, sign here because The New York Times knows what’s best for you. Salon has given in to its seething vitriol for all who question its moral pronouncements, and its protests lapse into violent riots. Local news channels, national publications, and social media sites are fighting for voters’ participation because they need the ad revenue to stay afloat.
The separation of media from political influence should be encouraged, not lamented. You’re starting from a great thesis: citizens should be engaged in response to current events. It pains me as much as it does you that our news is a seemingly endless cycle of suffering without response. But letting the media decide appropriate political responses goes against the foundation of a healthy political state. Suddenly, those with the loudest and most repetitive voices are the only ones heard. Or worse, the voices that make the most money are the only ones heard.
From a user perspective, you’re making a lot of assumptions. I’d be interested to see stats on this, but I seriously doubt that Facebook users want a more political site. Civic engagement be damned if it gets in the way of our photos. We all have loud, unreasoned opinions clogging up our feeds already, and we don’t want more of those. On a site like The Economist, what if I don’t agree with the pledge? Is there an opposite pledge I can sign? If not, how long will I visit a site that keeps telling me to take action on things with which I don’t agree? This could be a really hard sell to sites that already walk a thin line trying to stay unbiased without going bankrupt. I applaud you for the initiative here, but I think you’d be in for an unpleasant surprise if your ideas were implemented.
