Here's Part III in the series. It's been an extremely busy week here at The Real Story and its not letting up this weekend. This wasn't supposed to be a daily. . .
You had me until "a new national model ----- should be developed by the Fed Gov." Have we learned nothing? The Real Story, The Line , Inkless PW, etc is the promise of the future. The Feds can use the tax system to a greater degree to keep us proles involved.
I do not find Marc Edge's solutions useful. Like many, he blames the problems on profit-making. But his campaign to transform the media into a public utility is unsatisfactory. As a libertarian oriented person, I distrust concentrations of power. I prefer crowd funding over government funding; crowd funding certainly has the merit of breaking down such structures, but it does not resolve the problem of echo chambers. I think Terry's concern about the epistemological crisis is more important. When truth and facts have no value, no model resolves the media crisis. I do not think the crisis is caused by profiteering; nor do I think it is caused by technology, targeted ads, and the end of the monopoly on advertising. I think it is a side-effect of the notion of "their truth" and "alternative facts" (phrases that are synonymous). Until we agree that there are facts and truths, I fear no action resolves the crisis of journalism, or history, or science ....
In this piece for the Post ('When Narrrative Replaces Facts' https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-when-narrative-replaces-facts), which I wrote after almost everybody with a humanities degree in Canada set their hair on fire over my Year of the Graves investigation, I offered little in the way of advice except for readers to go out and find a book by Jonathan Rauch: The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.
The case he makes, quite convincingly, is that the principle that incendiary or blasphemous ideas need to be tolerated and protected is “the single most counterintuitive social principle in all of human history,” but even so, it’s also history’s most successful social principle. And it's under threat from all sides. “Those of us who favour it," Rauch writes, "and also our children, and also their children and their children, will need to get up every morning and explain and defend our counterintuitive social principle from scratch, so we might as well embrace the task and perform it cheerfully.”
In the book he proposes an amusing thought experiment. In a free society, everyone is entitled to believe that Elvis never died, that he is alive. But this will present a very straightforward problem for any purported liberal-democratic government that accepts the notion of everyone's "truths" over the truth as established by empirical study, verification, falsification, peer review, objective discernment, fact-checking and so on. Because if Elvis is still alive, where would the US federal government send his social security cheque?
Thanks Terry. I like Rauch. But, I am a historian, so I recommend Lynn Hunt, History: Why it Matters to my students. She argues that empiricism is the fundamental building block of knowledge and understanding. It is essential, she argues, if we are to deal with political figures like Trump, or I would add Trudeau. That defence, however, requires us to understand that facts exist. Many of my colleagues disagree. That is the problem that journalism, and all forms of knowledge, face in our current world.
The decline of the mainstream news media, while Meta and Google make millions in ad revenue off its contents, is yet another sign of the dark times to come....and it's all happening to vast public difference....more and more people only want opinions they agree with, they don't want facts or accountable information, or even informed comment....people are losing their ability to think and reason, replaced by shouting at people they don't agree with, and superficial slogans....it's a funny old world....
He concludes with the following statement about Bill C-18, which I agree with:
“More seriously, Ottawa’s Internet offensive puts at risk the free speech rights of all Canadians, and most worryingly opens the door to online censorship. The possibility of Ottawa requiring all information posted online to be government-approved should be concerning to all citizens, as it would severely limit free expression and even press freedom.”
Now, maybe I am missing something, but in this Real Story article above, he seems to be calling for MORE government involvement in the “free media”. So how does one reconcile these two opposing points of view?
Seems to me we already have two glaring examples of non-profit broadcasters/news presenters in the CBC and NPR, which warm the hearts of liberals everywhere. I suppose the CBC is not really a non-profit, nor is the NPR, but they clearly demonstrate how they can prosper at the government trough while the legacy media crashes. I'm concerned that the administrations in Ottawa and Washington would like to keep this present imbalance.
Can't resist (since you mentioned your Triumph): Have you seen the meme where the leather-clad biker on his Triumph is leading the pack in a bicycle race? He identifies as a cyclist.
(Okay, so maybe it isn't a Triumph. Poetic licence.)
People should decide who they want to support, not the govt.
There should be no govt 'qualified' or 'approved' media that the govt supports.
Any tax benefits should go to the media that people want to support. There should be no list of 'approved' media that only are eligible for tax credits.
To me in the foothills of old age, what these three installments have indicated, is summarised by a statement... " Today’s presentation of NEWS needs to get "fixed" but there is no agreed, sensible, all embracing "formula" that will achieve this." This is a simple observation that can also be applied to what ails many circumstances of our modern day lives.
Using the term "NEWS,” if just applied in those countries who are supposedly democratic, one could offer an opinion that might be condensed into a "bullet format:"
# 1) All NEWS should by Law, be completely free of any Government propaganda or fiscal support.
# 2) All NEWS from whatever source has to conform to the Laws of libel and slander of that country.
# 3) All NEWS cannot by Law, be censored, and by Law, free speech must not be curtailed in anyway.
# 4) All NEWS cannot by Law, be "brain-washing" of the populous by any Parties including the Government , Corporations, Activist Groups, and the like.
Depending on the culture of the individual, let the individual seek out and be informed by whatever source of NEWS they individually wish to hear, read, or see.
If only # 1) was achieved, it would be a start.
Of course, none of these suggestions are feasible because NEWS has always been presented to further and achieve certain goals of the individual writers of the NEWS, or goals of Government politicians in power, or the goals of Private Enterprise, religious doctrine , or activists.
No one will argue about journalism's sorry state. The jury's out on what will fix it but one thing is certain, any solutions that rely on government are bound to fail. The distrust of corporate media is only exceeded by distrust of government.
There's an expression in business, only take advice from those who are doing and getting what you want to do and get. Joe Rogan is amazingly successful because he presents both sides of an argument. Some of his guests I wildly disagree with, others I do. At least I get different perspectives. On a smaller scale, journalists who go independent are starting to do the same by publishing differing views on their sites. I will financially support information sources that I can trust to show me the full spectrum of views surrounding the important issues of the day. After that it's up to me to check their sources and form my own opinion.
You had me until "a new national model ----- should be developed by the Fed Gov." Have we learned nothing? The Real Story, The Line , Inkless PW, etc is the promise of the future. The Feds can use the tax system to a greater degree to keep us proles involved.
I do not find Marc Edge's solutions useful. Like many, he blames the problems on profit-making. But his campaign to transform the media into a public utility is unsatisfactory. As a libertarian oriented person, I distrust concentrations of power. I prefer crowd funding over government funding; crowd funding certainly has the merit of breaking down such structures, but it does not resolve the problem of echo chambers. I think Terry's concern about the epistemological crisis is more important. When truth and facts have no value, no model resolves the media crisis. I do not think the crisis is caused by profiteering; nor do I think it is caused by technology, targeted ads, and the end of the monopoly on advertising. I think it is a side-effect of the notion of "their truth" and "alternative facts" (phrases that are synonymous). Until we agree that there are facts and truths, I fear no action resolves the crisis of journalism, or history, or science ....
Bingo.
In this piece for the Post ('When Narrrative Replaces Facts' https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-when-narrative-replaces-facts), which I wrote after almost everybody with a humanities degree in Canada set their hair on fire over my Year of the Graves investigation, I offered little in the way of advice except for readers to go out and find a book by Jonathan Rauch: The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.
The case he makes, quite convincingly, is that the principle that incendiary or blasphemous ideas need to be tolerated and protected is “the single most counterintuitive social principle in all of human history,” but even so, it’s also history’s most successful social principle. And it's under threat from all sides. “Those of us who favour it," Rauch writes, "and also our children, and also their children and their children, will need to get up every morning and explain and defend our counterintuitive social principle from scratch, so we might as well embrace the task and perform it cheerfully.”
In the book he proposes an amusing thought experiment. In a free society, everyone is entitled to believe that Elvis never died, that he is alive. But this will present a very straightforward problem for any purported liberal-democratic government that accepts the notion of everyone's "truths" over the truth as established by empirical study, verification, falsification, peer review, objective discernment, fact-checking and so on. Because if Elvis is still alive, where would the US federal government send his social security cheque?
Thanks Terry. I like Rauch. But, I am a historian, so I recommend Lynn Hunt, History: Why it Matters to my students. She argues that empiricism is the fundamental building block of knowledge and understanding. It is essential, she argues, if we are to deal with political figures like Trump, or I would add Trudeau. That defence, however, requires us to understand that facts exist. Many of my colleagues disagree. That is the problem that journalism, and all forms of knowledge, face in our current world.
This you?
https://www.macewan.ca/academics/academic-departments/humanities/our-people/profile/?profileid=irwinr
Yes.
Will email.
This. 💯
The decline of the mainstream news media, while Meta and Google make millions in ad revenue off its contents, is yet another sign of the dark times to come....and it's all happening to vast public difference....more and more people only want opinions they agree with, they don't want facts or accountable information, or even informed comment....people are losing their ability to think and reason, replaced by shouting at people they don't agree with, and superficial slogans....it's a funny old world....
Good to hear from you, Rod. And not just because I see we're on exactly the same page. . .
Your colleague, Marc Edge has a recent article in Canadian Dimension:
“Is this the end of press freedom in Canada? Ottawa’s Internet offensive puts at risk the free speech rights of all Canadians.”
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/is-this-the-end-of-press-freedom-in-canada
He concludes with the following statement about Bill C-18, which I agree with:
“More seriously, Ottawa’s Internet offensive puts at risk the free speech rights of all Canadians, and most worryingly opens the door to online censorship. The possibility of Ottawa requiring all information posted online to be government-approved should be concerning to all citizens, as it would severely limit free expression and even press freedom.”
Now, maybe I am missing something, but in this Real Story article above, he seems to be calling for MORE government involvement in the “free media”. So how does one reconcile these two opposing points of view?
Seems to me we already have two glaring examples of non-profit broadcasters/news presenters in the CBC and NPR, which warm the hearts of liberals everywhere. I suppose the CBC is not really a non-profit, nor is the NPR, but they clearly demonstrate how they can prosper at the government trough while the legacy media crashes. I'm concerned that the administrations in Ottawa and Washington would like to keep this present imbalance.
Can't resist (since you mentioned your Triumph): Have you seen the meme where the leather-clad biker on his Triumph is leading the pack in a bicycle race? He identifies as a cyclist.
(Okay, so maybe it isn't a Triumph. Poetic licence.)
People should decide who they want to support, not the govt.
There should be no govt 'qualified' or 'approved' media that the govt supports.
Any tax benefits should go to the media that people want to support. There should be no list of 'approved' media that only are eligible for tax credits.
Terry, thanks for this.
To me in the foothills of old age, what these three installments have indicated, is summarised by a statement... " Today’s presentation of NEWS needs to get "fixed" but there is no agreed, sensible, all embracing "formula" that will achieve this." This is a simple observation that can also be applied to what ails many circumstances of our modern day lives.
Using the term "NEWS,” if just applied in those countries who are supposedly democratic, one could offer an opinion that might be condensed into a "bullet format:"
# 1) All NEWS should by Law, be completely free of any Government propaganda or fiscal support.
# 2) All NEWS from whatever source has to conform to the Laws of libel and slander of that country.
# 3) All NEWS cannot by Law, be censored, and by Law, free speech must not be curtailed in anyway.
# 4) All NEWS cannot by Law, be "brain-washing" of the populous by any Parties including the Government , Corporations, Activist Groups, and the like.
Depending on the culture of the individual, let the individual seek out and be informed by whatever source of NEWS they individually wish to hear, read, or see.
If only # 1) was achieved, it would be a start.
Of course, none of these suggestions are feasible because NEWS has always been presented to further and achieve certain goals of the individual writers of the NEWS, or goals of Government politicians in power, or the goals of Private Enterprise, religious doctrine , or activists.
Back to square one.....
No one will argue about journalism's sorry state. The jury's out on what will fix it but one thing is certain, any solutions that rely on government are bound to fail. The distrust of corporate media is only exceeded by distrust of government.
There's an expression in business, only take advice from those who are doing and getting what you want to do and get. Joe Rogan is amazingly successful because he presents both sides of an argument. Some of his guests I wildly disagree with, others I do. At least I get different perspectives. On a smaller scale, journalists who go independent are starting to do the same by publishing differing views on their sites. I will financially support information sources that I can trust to show me the full spectrum of views surrounding the important issues of the day. After that it's up to me to check their sources and form my own opinion.