There's a genuine problem with our epistemic environment, though. Changes in technology have led to a situation where there is now more available information than a reasonable individual can sort through and act on, but we haven't yet developed the social institutions needed to contain and regulate that flow. I agree that drawing off too much water could cause downstream droughts, but right now we've got a flood to deal with.
Maybe the FCC's existing and historical regulatory tools are a bad choice for this operation; I'm perfectly willing to believe that, but I don't think it's much of a contribution to the conversation to just say so and leave it at that. Some kind of tool is clearly needed, and without considering the specific character of the tool in question, we won't be able to make a better one. This essay sure does mention several examples of the "news distortion" standard being abused, but it doesn't go into any detail on how and why that abuse was possible. What actually happened? What even is this standard that we're talking about? What does the regulation say, and how does the enforcement history affect how we read it?
I actually think we're seeing the market correct on its own at the moment. After all, people overwhelmingly want accurate, truthful news (they just disagree on what counts as accurate & truthful) and can vote with their feet, eerrrr eyeballs.
And they are! Cable news in general, and Fox News in particular, are hemorrhaging viewers, especially among younger generations. The hyperpolarization, mood affiliation, and confirmation bias means cable news is confronting a growing aging crisis as they (mostly) hold on to older super-viewers but have alienated everyone else.
Furthermore, the Dominion settlement is a huge win for truth in news. Basically unprecedented in terms of the award size. And that's already had a disciplinary effect on personnel and coverage.
So I think we're on the downhill slope of the cable news disruption of they information environment.
I'll agree with you there. That correction has yet to build any followup institutional framework, though, and that's where I see the gap. There's no real characteristic structure of news delivery, in the way that there are characteristic markers of, say, fictional books. Instead, we're seeing people fall back on their personal affinity for particular sources, which is a perfectly normal instinct but doesn't do much to solve the underlying problem. Fox may be falling apart, but Joe Rogan is on the rise, etc.
Of course I'm not sure what a solution would look like either, but I think it's important to look for one, and to get a sense of what shape it might take.
This is where my hypothesis about the rise of the "new news media" comes in. In the two years since I wrote this, there are even more signs of its emergence as a substantial (and often superior) substitute.
Interesting. I feel like I've actually had some similar thoughts, but from a somewhat different angle. We'll have to see how things develop in the newsletter space (to which I'd add podcasts, if that hadn't already occurred to you), and how durable these new modes of information transmission end up being.
Sort of a separate thought, I think it's worth acknowledging that the newsletter seems to be the newest phase in the evolution of what was previously the blog. I'm not sure what preceded the blog (maybe mailing lists?), but I grew up with them, and it's been interesting to see things shifting around, from lucky individuals serving as community seeds to themed aggregators and now to substack as a sort of "generic" aggregator.
Agree, though it's still so kludgey. I think the "killer app" will be the first platform to bring TikTok/Youtube style algorithmic discovery to the newsletter/blog space. It's still so Internet 1.0, so word of mouth dependent.
There's a genuine problem with our epistemic environment, though. Changes in technology have led to a situation where there is now more available information than a reasonable individual can sort through and act on, but we haven't yet developed the social institutions needed to contain and regulate that flow. I agree that drawing off too much water could cause downstream droughts, but right now we've got a flood to deal with.
Maybe the FCC's existing and historical regulatory tools are a bad choice for this operation; I'm perfectly willing to believe that, but I don't think it's much of a contribution to the conversation to just say so and leave it at that. Some kind of tool is clearly needed, and without considering the specific character of the tool in question, we won't be able to make a better one. This essay sure does mention several examples of the "news distortion" standard being abused, but it doesn't go into any detail on how and why that abuse was possible. What actually happened? What even is this standard that we're talking about? What does the regulation say, and how does the enforcement history affect how we read it?
I actually think we're seeing the market correct on its own at the moment. After all, people overwhelmingly want accurate, truthful news (they just disagree on what counts as accurate & truthful) and can vote with their feet, eerrrr eyeballs.
And they are! Cable news in general, and Fox News in particular, are hemorrhaging viewers, especially among younger generations. The hyperpolarization, mood affiliation, and confirmation bias means cable news is confronting a growing aging crisis as they (mostly) hold on to older super-viewers but have alienated everyone else.
Furthermore, the Dominion settlement is a huge win for truth in news. Basically unprecedented in terms of the award size. And that's already had a disciplinary effect on personnel and coverage.
So I think we're on the downhill slope of the cable news disruption of they information environment.
I'll agree with you there. That correction has yet to build any followup institutional framework, though, and that's where I see the gap. There's no real characteristic structure of news delivery, in the way that there are characteristic markers of, say, fictional books. Instead, we're seeing people fall back on their personal affinity for particular sources, which is a perfectly normal instinct but doesn't do much to solve the underlying problem. Fox may be falling apart, but Joe Rogan is on the rise, etc.
Of course I'm not sure what a solution would look like either, but I think it's important to look for one, and to get a sense of what shape it might take.
This is where my hypothesis about the rise of the "new news media" comes in. In the two years since I wrote this, there are even more signs of its emergence as a substantial (and often superior) substitute.
https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/newspapers-newsletters-bright-future-local-journalism
Interesting. I feel like I've actually had some similar thoughts, but from a somewhat different angle. We'll have to see how things develop in the newsletter space (to which I'd add podcasts, if that hadn't already occurred to you), and how durable these new modes of information transmission end up being.
Sort of a separate thought, I think it's worth acknowledging that the newsletter seems to be the newest phase in the evolution of what was previously the blog. I'm not sure what preceded the blog (maybe mailing lists?), but I grew up with them, and it's been interesting to see things shifting around, from lucky individuals serving as community seeds to themed aggregators and now to substack as a sort of "generic" aggregator.
Agree, though it's still so kludgey. I think the "killer app" will be the first platform to bring TikTok/Youtube style algorithmic discovery to the newsletter/blog space. It's still so Internet 1.0, so word of mouth dependent.