>>> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth?
A strongman.
An idea that I attribute to Imre Lakatos, is that if you strip people of the ability to debate and discern facts, you create a power vacuum that can only be filled by those who can act in the absence of debate and facts, notably thugs and tyrants.
I believe this is the actual motivation behind the "war on truth" and the flood of misinformation.
This is my biggest fear about the media. If they don't come clean and reclaim their integrity (this goes for both left and right outlets), the public will reject them. Discourse will move to blogs, podcasts, private networks, etc. In the process, the laws and protections for journalism will be weathered and may be abolished altogether (who needs those pompous journalists, right?). Then we'll be no better than a propaganda state, where you can be jailed or sued for publishing a perspective that offends or exposes someone.
This is obviously a worst-case scenario, but I think that to prevent anything similar from happening Americans need to step up and pressure their news outlets to do better, and for social media platforms to be choked with regulation until they start preventing manipulative shit from spreading.
>social media platforms to be choked with regulation until they start preventing manipulative shit from spreading.
Manipulation is an unsolved human problem as old as humanity.
The core business model of social media is fundamentally based on manipulation.
Asking social media corporations to protect us from manipulation is salmon asking grizzly bears to protect them from getting eaten. It's contrary to their fundamental nature.
> if you strip people of the ability to debate and discern facts
If you dare to debate and discern the wrong facts, you get a hit piece published on you like Slate Star Codex. Or you get fired like the NY Times reporter Donald McNeil Jr.
It seems some of the media play an enthusiastic part in stripping people of that ability, not in protecting it.
I don't think there is a war on truth. What we are seeing is fundamentally economic. If you can't make money reporting, only activists pushing an agenda will remain. This leads to a justified decline in trust.
Also if you can make money or build a career being an activist...
Many "smart" activists found that with a little faux rage (and in the end, believing their own BS too), all these pundit, policy advisor, and advocacy jobs are there for the taking...
I think you are absolutely right. I can see the fallibility of 'Old World' media as well, but I think those who (actively) try to discredit them are playing with fire.
A strongman.
An idea that I attribute to Imre Lakatos, is that if you strip people of the ability to debate and discern facts, you create a power vacuum that can only be filled by those who can act in the absence of debate and facts, notably thugs and tyrants.
I believe this is the actual motivation behind the "war on truth" and the flood of misinformation.