Part 1: I'm not buying a damn mask!!!

[summer_in_TX]

52. The conflict between the First Amendment and RW media isn't totally insoluble.

If we target broadcast media and podcasts (both audio and video) carefully, we may be able to improve things.

First, require equal time for anyone who is maligned on the same channel in the same show and require all to allow for rebuttal. Same for groups maligned on the basis of race, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, or point of view.*

Second, break up consolidated broadcast media. Limit the number of radio and television stations owned by a single company to a number (like 10), none in the same market. Limit the percentage of other media the company could hold in the same market to under a combined 40 percent (cross-ownership rules).

Third, enact and/or strengthen public interest requirements for all broadcast media including cable and internet based audio and video media. Establish a nongovernmental board to receive reports and investigate violations, and provide sanctions. Charge the board particularly with investigating hate speech, revenge speech, and inciting hatred toward others based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, and point of view if those are done on broadcast media.

Fourth, set up an independent system for funding public media that is not kept beholden to the powers that be and commercial interests. Something like a 0.5 percent tax on electronic devices, with a governing board appointed by academia and communities, not elected officials.

Fifth, elevate truthfulness in broadcast media so that knowingly broadcasting disinformation subjects the show's staff and the network to sanctions, particularly if it is done as a pattern of behavior. And likewise, killing a true story that is in the public interest by the executives would also be a violation and be sanctioned.

Sixth, make it mandatory that all public schools at all levels teach students to analyze media messages for credibility and elevate detecting propaganda in all communications to a foremost societal priority for students and adults.

Seventh, set up a system of providing access to broadcast media for all viable candidates so they may get their message out without charge, perhaps a certain amount of interview time per month, and during that time the focus would be on drawing out stances on issues, not on the polls. Political advertising charges need to be controlled so they stay affordable for candidates. (Checks and balances on the media/politician/money conglomerate.)



Some of these may be easier to find agreement on than others. I can't foresee all the consequences of each of these suggestions and when we have a free-wheeling debate between people on them, I don't expect all to win approval, or to go unmodified. I may well change my mind based on good arguments from others.

Personally I consider audio and video uniquely problematic because they are capable of bypassing the rational part of the brain and produce effects that are designed to manufacture consent. The research paid for by major corporations on persuading people to buy their product has also been used to persuade people about a candidate. So I focus on those media.


*Exception: The right of rebuttal for those groups who use hate speech, in my personal opinion, would be disallowed or only allowed in limited circumstances. (Yes, I find our version of free speech has some problems not found to the same degree in some other democracies, like say Germany.)