How do we improve the news?

[swan_tower]

One of the issues I keep chewing on is the fundamental weakness of journalism today. A combination of factors ranging from the ability of fake news to spread via social media to the economic pressures that encourage our formal outlets to pursue sensationalism and fence-sitting have made it such that misinformation rules the day right now.

I want to work on fixing that, but I don’t know how.

I’ve seen people say “we need to subscribe to paid outlets so they can afford to do proper investigative journalism.” Is that the answer? I’m not sure. I have no guarantee that’s what they’ll spend my subscription dollars on, and no certainty that even if they do, it will have a noticeable effect. So I put it to you all: what’s the best place to apply leverage to improve the state of journalism today? Is it a newspaper subscription? Some organization? Does anybody out there have a real, practical solution to this problem — or at least a convincing argument for one — and if so, where?

Originally published at Swan Tower. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

I think that that is one of the factors--paying people to do journalism. And by that I mean to take the time to really investigate--to afford the time to really be thoughtful.

But it's not enough. We have to want truth. And unfortunately, a great many people seem to not care about truth. They want to hear what they want to hear, and call it truth.

Di

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

I think one of the big challenges comes down to "who is paying for this journalism?" Even subscriptions are going to take a back seat to big advertisers and big donors.

As a former activist, I can tell you that there are many, many outrageous stories that are buried, and have been since the Reagan administration. Remember People for the American Way?

Perhaps (shudder) the thing to do is to turn the truth into its own reality show, with clickbait lines, dramatic music, and etc (shudder) (shudder).

[heliopausa.livejournal.com]

There's been a miserable decline in the standard of journalism even in papers/outlets which I have long respected - knee-jerk writing, "facts"/not-facts thrown about carelessly, nuance thrown out the window.. :(
I do think subscribing is helpful, if you can find a journal/outlet worth supporting. The Conversation? But as well, we - I mean I - have to get up the gumption to at least write letters for public consumption. (I did manage a fairly long debate on radio, about twenty minutes, with a talk-show person who was peddling untruths. I found it pretty daunting; I hate conflict.)

[cgbookcat1.livejournal.com]

I like the pieces published by Pacific Standard, enough that I am considering subscribing. As to your broader question, I don't have easy answers. It's been a question I've thought about a lot recently.

[rosefox]

Support ProPublica; this is exactly what they do, and they do it well.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Thanks! They look good, and I may send a donation their way, in addition to watching their site.

[alessandriana.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as well. I'm not really sure what the answer is. I do think paying to do proper journalism is important, but the problem is that fake news is really, really compelling to a lot of people. There has to be some way to make it less compelling, but I don't know what that is.

I have considered buying ads (which you can target to specific websites) on some of the major fake news peddlers that literally just say in allcaps "THIS IS FAKE NEWS", but then you're giving money to the website, so...

ETA: Well, and the other option is somehow making fake news less profitable (going after the ad companies that enable it?) but I'm not sure how that would work either, besides what that one effort is already doing. I know there was recently a measure passed as part of the NDAA that is supposed to help combat foreign propaganda-- it would be interesting to see how they are planning to do that.

[slb44.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting conundrum that I've spend a lot of time contemplating over the course of the recent election in the United States. It's obvious that sensational sound bites and headlines proved profitable for the major news outlets and Trump provided them with plenty of that. It seems to me upon paying very close attention to multiple outlets over the campaign period that all the media allowed Trump to get away with exaggeration and falsehoods like they never have before because it guaranteed clicks and viewers. In doing so they let their side down massively because a free and brutally honest press is a necessity in a democracy. However they need those viewers and those clicks in order to survive so they're trapped in a Catch 22 situation. False news is cheap and easy, real journalism is not and yet they got rewarded for not doing their job properly, so I'm at as much of a loss as you are. I suspect in the end the only thing that will make a lasting difference is if we, the consumers of their product, hold them to the very highest standards. Contacting them when they don't spell out the facts, or shade the truth, etc. and let them know that we not only expect better but demand it.

[sovay]

Does anybody out there have a real, practical solution to this problem — or at least a convincing argument for one — and if so, where?

In terms of internet fake news, I found this a useful article.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

This is a very real and very important issue!

[sheff-dogs.livejournal.com]

Several major German companies including BMW have announced that they are making sure they do not advertise with Breitbart because they dislike their ideology. The companies didn't actively choose to advertise with Breitbart, their ads were being place by computers, and now the programme will exclude Breitbart and similar outlets. Which is a long way of saying it may be worth writing to companies you patronise about who they advertise with and whether they really want to be associated with supporting fake news.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting idea -- except I'm not sure how to find out who advertises with Breitbart et al without, y'know, going to Breitbart and looking. Which I'm reluctant to do even once, let alone on a regular basis.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Two possible paths to look at. 538.com gets a lot of respect for accuracy and non-trashy presentation; their team sounds well-fed. Huffington Post (last I heard) did not have any paid writers; all were volunteers sending in essays from home, doing it for love of their subjects. Dunno how the owners make profit at either site.