What's going to stop the growh of fake news?

[ThatOneKid]

ThatOneKid,

Lies can be useful to individuals.

Life is almost never benefited in the long run by lies. I imagine the only exceptions are when life preservation is at stake in some way. Thus truth is actually useful for all life. Not simply an individual or select group of individuals. That is real.

It's not that real things can't be accomplished with lies. For there to be a lasting beneficial impact for life though, only the truth suffices.

This "feel good" is people deceiving themselves. Perhaps believing they are part of some kind of exceptional group. Everyone has a breaking point when they simply can't deceive themselves anymore. Generally it's when the lie doesn't feel beneficial to them. Such as when they have negative material consequences.

Deception can only be buried so deep before the truth resurfaces in some way. Deception is naturally self destructive.

Lies will never be eradicated in all likely hood. We can bring balance though. Truth is a laborious process, and the most rewarding in totality.

Creating another watchdog has been done. It's not a real solution. Just a temporary partial workaround that blatantly acknowledges a greater ongoing systemic problem.

This problem only begins to be solved when people individually and collectively seek the truth through every life benefiting means. Not always going to be pretty but there can be far greater balance.

But how can we bring balance?

[Steve3007]

Obviously it's a simplistic picture. Real people are a complex mixture of various different motivations in various different quantities. Some altruistic, some selfish and most somewhere in between.

The popular perception appears to be that all politicians are by definition either power hungry wannabe dictators, corrupt money grabbers, Machiavellian schemers, incompetent fools or mindless sheep following a party political herd. Or rather a combination of some/all of those things. I think that is an unnecessarily negative view. I am fairly certain that many are motivated by a genuine desire to pass legislation which they believe will help people's lives. And I don't think that they either have to be incompetent or Machiavellian and that those are the only two choices. I think it's possible to be a person who is idealistic enough to want to make the world a better place but pragmatic enough to know that in order to do that you need to work within the system in which you find yourself.

Given that politicians are legislators, I think that if we don't think that then we are essentially stating that we don't think that the rule of law - laws created for the general good of society - is possible. I think it self-evidently is possible.

[Eduk]

I've never heard a politician answer a question where they weren't lying or incorrect or both.
Now maybe there is someone with great perception and wisdom and kindness who being a politician answers questions in the way a politician must. So he is clearly Machiavellian. Now he might argue that this is what he has to do to improve things, he can't improve things if he isn't elected. Maybe he accepts his powers will be quite limited, maybe most of the time rather than going with a good option he is forced to go with the less worse option. All the while he is manipulating people he still somehow retains the perspective and humility and kindness he needs and is never corrupted. He has the disrespect for people that he feels he must lie to them and manipulate them but he also has the respect for them needed to do this out of kindness.
I truly wish this man existed.

-- Updated April 5th, 2017, 4:45 am to add the following --

sorry being sexist, replace man with person

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

Since politicians are human beings with the responsibility and power to pass laws (legislators) I presume from the above that you think politics - the creation and passing of legislation - is impossible to do honestly? That laws which benefit society in general (as opposed to lining the pockets of corrupt politicians) do not exist now and will never exist at any time in the future? I presume you don't think that you or I are really any different from people who are currently politicians and that therefore if we decided to run for elected office we too would become liars and manipulators?

Do you think that the state of affairs that you describe is acceptable, and if not acceptable, changeable? If changeable, how would you propose to change it? If not changeable then presumably acceptable?

[Eduk]

I would never get elected. I would say things like all religions are made up and instantly only atheists would vote for me. Then I would say things like global warming is the scientific consensus of experts, horoscopes are made up, vaccines are good, homeopathy is water, please stop driving close behind one another in the middle lane, please when going through double doors and it's very busy use both doors, I would be encouraging children to question their parents and informing the parents that they don't own their children (neither does the state). And then instantly not be voted for by a huge percentage of the atheists remaining too.
Plus yes there is a very real danger I would be corrupted, I'm not infallible, this is a real risk for anyone and flippantly ignoring it and saying not me is naive in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong it's not all bad. We have the government we deserve and there are a lot lot worse governments. I don't believe that all the politicians are all evil all of the time. Many of them are likely fundamentally good people. I think they are not really very competent though. For starters anyone who thinks they can talk intelligently and in depth on every subject is suffering from severe narcissism and they never ever say they don't know.
Also politicians only do so much. Actual work is done by other people, a badly formulated plan with good execution can often outperform a well formulated plan with poor execution. Many individuals make good decisions in spite of the government.
Oh and it's not what I would call acceptable. But democracy is the least worst option I know of. Fundamentally any system is constrained by the people so it's more a case of human nature being the problem than the system of democracy being a problem.
My efforts to actually change anything are sadly pretty limited. I hope to have a small local influence which resonates over time, but that's about the limit of my hope to be honest.

[Steve3007]

Sounds like a pretty good manifesto, although I'm a bit concerned by an emerging obsession with people's double door walking habits.

[Eduk]

haha, just a pet peeve Don't like to see people acting so unconsciously, it troubles me.

[wanabe]

ThatOneKid,

We bring balance by seeking truth of course.

In the case of fake news. You can produce news from what you see around you. That is your truth at the very least.

Anyone can publish and distribute now. All you have to do is share facts you observe. By putting your real news out it brings balance. Boycott anything that isn't Grassroots and citizen journalism also helps. Lots of people are doing all this already. Grassroots and citizen journalism are the future of the actual free press, always is.

Modern main stream media news has always been fake. Primarily it's the fourth estate of modern government. Not something independent and wholly separate, as often advertised. Especially when speaking about world powers.

If we're going to stop the growth of fake news, we're going to have to do the work to stop the growth of fake news.

[Steve3007]

Boycott anything that isn't Grassroots and citizen journalism also helps.

I have a couple of friends and relations who are either former journalist or are currently working as a journalist (for a "mainstream" London newspaper). When studying journalism I've gathered that among the important things they learn are methods for attempting to determine the truth or falsehood of stories - not relying on just a single source etc. Journalism is a trade which people learn, like other trades. You may well be right that the only future for journalism is for untrained part-timers to take their place. But would you say the same of other trades? Doctors, for example? Maybe.

I don't agree with your assertion that "mainstream" journalism is a branch of government. Of course it suffers from the problem that all accounts of present and historical events suffer from - that it's impossible to arrange things such that the only motive of the person reporting those events is the communication of objective truth. There are always other motives. The main one for journalism is, of course, the need to make a living and therefore the need to print stories that large numbers of people want to read. But citizen journalism doesn't remove that problem. It just replaces it with other problems.

[wanabe]

Steve3007,

At the core journalism is just an adaptation of the scientific method. It's not going to be pretty at first. That doesn't mean the facts will be wrong. Grass roots and citizen journalists are not necessarily untrained, unpaid, or part time.

A doctor and a journalist are two separate fields. Even so. People start with biology and first aid, then intern, then practice. Doctors do sometimes open up small practices and in fact do practice "grass roots" medicine. A prime example of this are the desperately needed doctors and clinics that serve the less fortunate. There's a rapidly growing number of less fortunate. I imagine doctors being the ethicists and healers that they are would step up and build these kind of small practices as the need grows.

Media is not an official branch of government of course. A modern government can't live without a propaganda machine though. That's what mainstream media is. They pretend to be objective. Ultimately they serve the state's agenda above all else. Sure mainstream media can broadcast or publish whatever they want. They also have to or simply will broadcast or publish whatever the government says as well. FCC has the final say with mainstream media.

Grass roots and citizen journalism does not necessarily have to obey the FCC, that's what the bill of rights is for.

If people start their own grass roots media platform and gather advertisers and paid subscribers then people get paying jobs. High school kids do this, it's not that hard. Adults could surly create a respectable news source.

The problems people have with achieving objectivity isn't ever going to be gone, it will just be lessened and balanced out by having an actual free open market of ideas being broadcasted and published.

All news outlets started small and grew. All doctors start by dissecting animals and cadavers, then learn to work on living things.

[Steve3007]

wanabe:

You appear, essentially, to be proposing that organised, paid journalism should be thrown away and then re-created from the ground up into a new generation of organised, paid journalism. What makes you think it will be different next time around?