riddler wrote:A second premise is that the News Media, more than the general public, are more apt to have factual reporting. They do not.
For "News Media" without further qualification, I would agree. However, in general, I have found the general public to be remarkably ill-informed, misinformed, and willing to believe whatever someone tells them. Look at all the crap that circulates as email chain letters. "Common knowledge is commonly wrong." "Information may want to be free, but nothing says it wants to be correct
riddler wrote:The third premise is that we, the public, should accept the well-informed, thoughtful opinions of talking heads, rather than the people that we actually interact with. We should not.
Again, that statement is ambiguous without qualification, but given most of the people I interact with every day, I think we would be much better off listening to "well-informed experts" than the "ignorant masses we actually interact with".
Sunidesus wrote: DragonHawk wrote:
DVC wrote:How about just implementing some sort of peer rating system then?
That sounds a lot more sane to me.
The problem being that any peers doing the reviewing would most likely have the same ridiculous ideas about news as the originators.
Such a system would only be useful if it was independent and unbiased. I'm thinking something like Consumer Reports
Plus, the folks in charge are entirely too worried about getting people to watch instead of worrying about informing people.
Indeed. I see that as the big problem. That, and the fact that many of the "viewers" are all too eager to fall for it. I know several people who complain when the news is "boring", and/or have commented that they prefer it to be "entertaining".