Former Producer: Why I’m now leaving MSNBC
arianapekary.net
arianapekary.net
unfortunately, i think if you fixed cable news tomorrow, it’s already well too late.
But look at incentives. If people are not rewarded for 'viral' news, they probably won't bother to make it.
Of course for some people 'reward' is just the kick of seeing Rome burn. But they're easier to spot.
Then we try and fill 25% of journalists for each specific group giving a broader opinion-set. If you feel a specific journalist doesn't match and you're in that group you can vote to have them replaced.
Build a social network around this idea, and try and create some sort of equilibrium. Push also for renewal of the 'fairness doctrine', and more culpability for journalists in reporting the truth.
Imagine having a round table discussion for example with: Ana Kasparian (Left), Donna Brazille (Left-center), Tucker Carlson (Right-center), Ron Paul (Libertarian).
Sure it'll be a political bloodbath the first few months, but eventually there might come some equal ground places where people can give and maybe we gain back some integrity in journalism.
I wish we could get rid of talking heads altogether and just report the facts as they lay and let people come to their own conclusions but...that cat is out of the bag.
Next best thing is a network that has all view points and just rotates through, 1pm Tucker, 2pm Ana, 3pm Donna, 4pm Ron ... etc (not necessarily these people obviously, just an example).
1. Education is not a priority. 2. The populous by and large accepts cable news as "news" and not as capitalist entertainment.
Solve the first problem and you solve the second - give it a decade or two and this place isn't nearly as bad off as it's become in the last 20 years.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-...
B. The pros and cons of "higher education" is a drop in the bucket of reasons US education is "bad". All the years prior to university are much more important. Having gone through the system in "good" schools, I couldn't agree with the parent post more. However, none of it can begin until the generic stigma of "more education = bad" is destroyed (which probably first means destroying the one real thing that is fueling that image, which is the price of college and subsequent class warfare).
1. corruption in politics. (Revolving door, lobbyists, etc.. -- which creates the two problems you mentioned above). See: https://represent.us for examples. This should be a bi-partisan issue.
2. Two party system (fueled by the above), but if congress was partially filled by party preference we'd see a wider view.
For example say a state gets 20 reps, well 10 of those are voted in, 10 are party preference (5% of vote or more). So say green party gets 20%, Libertarian 10%, Democrat 40%, GOP 30%.
Green: 2, Libertarian: 1, Dem: 4, GOP: 3.
Also moving to ranked choice voting would be nice. Not sure how the dynamics of the senate could be changed, except maybe instead of states we just cut the country into equal-sized geometric shapes and each 'shape' gets a senator.
I also believe the house should be expanded per the constitution that calls for about 2500 based on current population. (1 per 100,000 pop). It'd make more jobs and give more people voices as well.
Term limits would help too, maybe not permanent ones but make it so you can only be senator/congressman 1 term back-to-back. This also makes it so you're never 'campaigning' while 'working'. You'd sit out 4 years, then you could rotate back in (if you win).
Supreme Court should also have term limits, and a dynamic #. Say each president coming in gets to pick 1-2 justices (to get an odd number, say one dies in October, and isn't replaced by inauguration...), each justice serves 10 years and then is up for re-election.
I also think the house should pick 'contenders', then all of congress and the senate vote (by ranked choice), maybe the president's vote counts as 50, giving him a 'weighted' decision, but still there's more representation in the vote.
If we could redo the constitution, these would be some things to make it more fair. imho.
Also thought that the converse would be an interesting case as well: once you leave congress any $ you make above, say, $150k a year is donated to charity or taxed at 100%.
There is non-profit news, e.g. NPR. But we're often told that it must be at least partially state-sponsored to be viable. Making it more vulnerable to state control. The model does seem to be disadvantaged in the marketplace compared to for-profit news, judging by its relative scarcity. There doesn't seem to be a way to make it dominant without legally restricting for-profit competition, i.e. restricting free speech.
Free markets deliver what consumers want. But not necessarily what's best for them, and certainly not necessarily what's best for society.
For many markets we can gloss over that to some extent, for example food. We have cheap, abundant, and generally high quality food, but it's often addictive (because that's what sells), and unhealthy, and imposes a very high cost to our health as a society, and to many individuals.
But news/information is even more fundamental, it is the blood of democracy. And it seems to be in rather ill-health of late.
But they could be paying for it, without requiring it to be centralized.
I imagine a similar model to how some countries fund political campaigns, in an attempt to 'level the field' between rich and poorer parties. Winning votes does not affect the budget next time, so in the case of news, there would be less incentive to produce addictive, sensational material. Obviously there are many issues with this kind of model too.