I’d sooner be onboard having non-profit social media than broader news. Social media is definitely far overdue for regulation
maybe we can categorize news as informational vs sensational. Sensational can be for profit
I’d rather have a law that just says, if you want to be able to use the defense of “we are just entertainment” when you are sued for misreporting, then you have to display a disclaimer at the beginning of every show, and after every commercial break, to the effect of: “This show is for entertainment purposes only and is not a news program.”
4 Likes
The primary issue with news media is success is measured by use, clicks for online, viewers for broadcast. To keep usage up news media promotes controversy and things that can be made to appear exceptional, either exceptionally good but more often exceptionally bad. Locking users into a pattern of addiction by shaping the big picture and tweaking the little chemical pops in human brains also increases use. Profits give a perverse incentive to increase use of product despite any moral, ethical, or social problems associated with the content. A non-profit structure may be able to remove the perverse incentives. I am not convinced making news non-profit will be effective at reforming the incentives for bad behavior from measuring success by use.
1 Like
I think there are two problems:
-
news becoming a consumer product rather that either a report on the truth or a critical opinion.
-
new not being independent of sources of political power.
fox news has both of these problems, to varying degrees depending on whether you mean daytime or prime time. it is a product. and part of that product is supporting the republican party.
facebook is mostly problem (1). but as far as i can tell, it is so good at making new a consumer product that it automatically only gives news that supports the party you like.so in the extreme, the distinctions between those two problems may disappear.
i don’t see how nonprofit status fixes either of these problems, personally. lots of hospitals are technically nonprofit, but are still very focused on making money.
maybe nonprofit doesn’t fix it. What do we do about small local news orgs that are going bankrupt? They are the watchdogs of local govt
What are we supposed to do about them?
And how does requiring their being non-profit fix that?
How about “no commercials, only donations”?
Wouldn’t have to worry about biting a hand that feeds one, well, except for those large donors.
How about no publicly-traded companies owning media? That capitalistic focus by large stockholders on profits may be the big problem. Having sole individual owners (maybe small LLCs) of media will at least let the consumers know what slant the content has.
Or, wait, now think about it: State-Run Media. What could possiblie go wrong??
One of our local papers converted to not-for-profit and now their website is fully subscription only. I know longer read anything from them.
First, define “media”,
and define “non-profit”,
and define “better”,
and define “public”,
and define “should”.
Then we can start a discussion.
2 Likes
first define “screw that shit”
This is the right answer, but I think you need to expand. Media can be for-profit, but there should be more adherence to journalism ethics and standards. That may mean not maximizing profit at their expense, but I don’t think the profit question solves the ethics problem.
There is also the separate issue of media progressively becoming more of a distraction overall, so journalistic ethics aren’t incentivized. Probably we should incentivize them. I struggle to see why journalism is self-regulated in-house, they need a professional disciplinary organization and licensing to give it teeth. I think the issue is important enough for it.
Well one thing that needs to happen is that outlets need to declare themselves news or not news.
If you are news then you are responsible for the content you put out. You can be sued for slander and/or libel. But you enjoy first amendment protections such as keeping a source confidential, and the right to enter restricted areas open only to the press.
If you are not news then freedom of the press does not apply. And furthermore you must clearly disclose that you are not a news source.
Places like Fox News have played both sides claiming to be news and also not news and that needs to stop.
3 Likes
This is also part of the issue but it brings up another question of how news outlets could survive in an environment where people crave clickbait and algorithms. Is there another step where purely news outlets enjoy some additional benefits given their importance for a functional society?
Some sort of tax break maybe?
Perhaps they should not be for-profit corporations which have several large shareholders (or which own several other companies) who want to control content for financial interests.