mrswdk wrote:The usual CIA trollbots will disagree with me whether I speak as neutrally as possible or whether I babble like a rabid chimpanzee (aka 'saxi style'), so I figured I might as well start enjoying myself.
My general point is that there is now a broad bipartisan consensus in America that the existing laissez-faire approach to social and mainstream media does more harm than good and that the content they publish needs to be regulated and controlled.
Lumping together these very different things is where you're wrong.
The mainstream media already does an adequate job of regulating itself. It needs no outside regulation. Publishers insist that stories submitted by reporters are supported by documentary evidence and/or credible witnesses. If errors creep into a story, corrections are published. Reporters who falsify stories are mercilessly weeded out -- fired at the very least, often blacklisted for prolonged periods and/or sued for damages. There are real consequences for lying, so everyone involved does their best to weed out any possible lies.
It's social media that does all the harm, because there are no consequences for lying. People are free to publish any fanciful nonsense they want. Some of this is harmless fluff, but a lot of it consists of very dangerous conspiracy theories and hatemongering. This is where some regulation is needed. It seems, however, that the first few tentative steps in that direction have already been taken.
