Kite News

> News never changed. It was always exactly like this.

That's not true. Bias and agenda have always existed, but there was a time when news sources clearly distinguished facts from opinions. In the US the shift arguably happened in 1987 when the fairness doctrine was abolished, and for-profit media companies were given freedom to publish anything they wanted. The 24/7 news cycle was established, and news sources operated under incentives to keep consumers' attention above everything else, including journalistic integrity.

> The thing that changed is social media is letting everyone fact check the journalists and we're catching them in their lies. We are ushering in a new era of professionalism and truth in journalism and it's not going well at all.

That's a bold take, if I ever saw one. You're actually saying that social media is a good thing for journalism?

If anything, social media exacerbated the free-for-all problem of reporting. Suddenly, everyone was a news reporter, with zero moral or integrity obligations. On the contrary: the larger the audience of a social media influencer, the more incentivized they are to infuse their content with bias and agenda. Companies, advertisers, and governments love that influencers can be easily bought. This is far from a "new era of professionalism and truth in journalism". What a skewed perspective you have.

And now with AI tools, the world is even more flooded with (m|d)isinformation than ever before.

There's nothing inherently flawed about traditional news media. It just needs to be strongly regulated to report facts rather than opinions[1]. This regulation is literally impossible on social media. Journalism is not something anyone with a social media account can or should do. I'm not saying that journalism can't exist on social media—it certainly can. But on its own it's not a place where journalism can thrive.

I would go a step further and make journalism a licensed profession, with its own variant of the Hippocratic Oath. Making the line between fact and fiction as clear as possible is essential to living in reality. Otherwise, words can be weaponized and people can be manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that are beneficial to those in power.

[1] To counter the argument "who gets to be the arbitrer of truth?", it's quite easy to determine when a news story is opinionated: it's loaded with adjectives and language that is crafted to elicit an emotional response in the consumer. Journalism, on the other hand, reports events that happened. It succinctly answers who, what, when, where. It doesn't describe why, or tries to put a spin on the facts. Those events can be easily fact checked. In fact, if everyone was doing journalism, every news story would be exactly the same. The differences are the bulk of the bias and agenda.

>That's not true. Bias and agenda have always existed, but there was a time when news sources clearly distinguished facts from opinions. In the US the shift arguably happened in 1987 when the fairness doctrine was abolished, and for-profit media companies were given freedom to publish anything they wanted.

It's plausible that pre-1987 that journalism was better but I very much doubt it. There's tons of Vietnam war era journalism that was terribly bad.

>That's a bold take, if I ever saw one. You're actually saying that social media is a good thing for journalism?

Depends on your point of view. From government point of view it's terrible. If it's journalists being held accountable for their lies and agendas, way worse. These journalists will obviously hold anti-social media positions due to this.

But from the consumer of news point of view it's a fantastic improvement. Today i read an article about a 'prohibited night-vision' in Canada but there's literally no such thing in Canada. All night vision is legal in Canada.

>If anything, social media exacerbated the free-for-all problem of reporting. Suddenly, everyone was a news reporter, with zero moral or integrity obligations.

That's how freedom of the press works correct. If you dont have moral and integrity, good luck getting an audience.

>There's nothing inherently flawed about traditional news media. It just needs to be strongly regulated to report facts rather than opinions[1]. This regulation is literally impossible on social media. Journalism is not something anyone with a social media account can or should do. I'm not saying that journalism can't exist on social media—it certainly can. But on its own it's not a place where journalism can thrive.

The government regulating the news is literally the opposite of freedom of the press.

>I would go a step further and make journalism a licensed profession, with its own variant of the Hippocratic Oath. Making the line between fact and fiction as clear as possible is essential to living in reality. Otherwise, words can be weaponized and people can be manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that are beneficial to those in power.

So the government will revoke freedom of the press and license journalists? Just dont do that in my country, thanks.

>[1] To counter the argument "who gets to be the arbitrer of truth?",

You want the government to license journalists. You want to make the government the arbiter of truth.

> That's how freedom of the press works correct. If you dont have moral and integrity, good luck getting an audience.

In what world do you think this is true?

> It's plausible that pre-1987 that journalism was better but I very much doubt it.

Thankfully, you can look up archive footage and print media to confirm this. Or talk to people who lived it.

> There's tons of Vietnam war era journalism that was terribly bad.

I didn't say all of it was good. I said that that the line between fact and opinion was clearer. I'm not that old, but I remember when newspapers had an editorial section. This was a single-page essay about popular topics written by senior editors that was clearly labeled as an opinion piece. This meant that the rest of the paper was not an opinion, and contained purely facts.

After media companies became for-profit organizations, the editorial didn't make sense, since they could fill the entire edition with opinions. And, wouldn't you know it, if they reported more of a certain type of event and gave it a specific spin, they would get more eyeballs, and more profit from advertisers. Outrage media and spin doctors were born.

> Depends on your point of view. From government point of view it's terrible. If it's journalists being held accountable for their lies and agendas, way worse.

You have a twisted perspective that governments, and somehow by association journalists, are the only ones with an agenda, and can't be trusted.

While that might be the case, what makes you trust a random social media influencer more? Influencers are even more susceptible to being corrupted by whoever's sponsoring them. At least with propaganda from governments and traditional media you know what their agendas are. I know what to expect from Fox News and CNN. It's practically impossible to know the type of agenda of a million different voices all shouting into the void.

> That's how freedom of the press works correct. If you dont have moral and integrity, good luck getting an audience.

Wow. Are you new to the internet? That statement is blatantly false if you check any social media site.

> The government regulating the news is literally the opposite of freedom of the press.

I'm not advocating for the government to regulate the news. What I'm advocating for is for establishing certain standards that media outlets must adhere to in order to operate. This could ideally be done via an international body with independent oversight, and not just by a single government. The financial incentive must also be removed, and news outlets should operate as non-profit public services rather than corporations.

If done correctly, this could ensure transparency and integrity in news reporting, and bring ethics back into journalism.

> So the government will revoke freedom of the press and license journalists? Just dont do that in my country, thanks.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean that everyone should have an equal voice in reporting facts about the world. You really think that a social media influencer can be relied on to report facts more than a news agency with actual journalists? That's delusional.

The reason licenses for journalists are a good idea is the same reason why we require one for doctors, civil engineers, and other professions where human lives are at stake. Information is one of the most important factors in the wellbeing of a modern society. By ensuring that only individuals who study the craft and pledge to abide to certain ethical and integrity standards can practice journalism, we could establish trustworthy news sources, and regain public trust in news agencies. This would make whatever nonsense is spewed on social media irrelevant.

> You want the government to license journalists. You want to make the government the arbiter of truth.

You are intentionally misinterpreting what I say, so I'll refrain from replying again. What I said was that if only facts are reported there wouldn't need to be an arbitrer of truth, because the facts could be easily verified. If multiple independent and trustworthy sources report the same story with the same facts, then it must be true. The government nor anyone else couldn't have a say in the matter.

>I'll refrain from replying again.

I bet, you're straight up calling for government state propaganda and the end of freedom of the press. You're literally my enemy.

What is fascinating is that you're unable to see that we want the same things, since you are blinded by social media, and conditioned to see those who challenge your thinking as the enemy.

This exchange is a good example of the damage these technologies are doing to civil discourse.

Farewell.