Does the media have a responsibility to educate the populace?

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems facing this nation is the lack of its citizenry to educate themselves. For example, on C-SPAN this morning, they had a question for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents about which Party was best able to fix the economy? As a parallel subject, they presented a poll by USA Today and Gallup that showed Republicans preferred by 48% to 36%. Those were the parameters that the callers were commenting on.

To be fair, a couple of callers asked about the "facts". What are the "facts"? Why does the media give us "but on the other hand", the Republicans believe this or the Democrats believe that?

The lack of education on important issues, such as Medicare, Social Security, defense spending, taxes, etc, are never discussed in detail or in "facts". They are only discussed from a periphereal position.

Congressman Paul Ryan presents a brave solution to our deficit problems, they say. They don't ask if there is another solution or a better solution. They present the Ryan plan as the only way, in many cases. At least, in the mind of many viewers.

The people of this country will not educate themselves on the facts. They will continue to rely on the shallow propaganda of the television networks and the talking heads. They will never be educated. Therein lies the problem.

Good decisions cannot be made without the facts. That includes the decision of whom to vote for when you go to the polls. No doubt, the people have a duty to educate themselves. But, what responsibility do the media have in giving people the facts in order for them to make a good decision? They are failing miserably.

There are not two sides to every debate or issue. There are facts and there are lies. Citizens that are not given the facts fail to distinguish between the two. They choose by Party affiliation. They trust their Party leaders to tell them the truth. They have blind faith. This is the road we are on and it is the road to disaster.

We need the media to do their job. We need to hold them responsible. We need to challenge them with the facts. We don't need to know what one side said and what the other side responded. That serves no useful purpose.

To point out the inaccuracies in statements made and to inform the public of the truth.

The media is supposed to be the peoples guardian over the government, not one side or the others tool to peddle propaganda.

Commentary should be delegated to the back pages or a one minute statement on the back end of any broadcast.

What we have now does nothing to provide those needs.

But the right wing has figured out they can control the decisions of a large segment of the population through propaganda and since they own the media, they have the machine with which to propel the message and control the thoughts of millions.

then how will the media outlets generate any dividends for their shareholders? media COMPANIES are for profit businesses, their only responsibility is to make money. If making infotainment is more profitable than actual news then they would be irresponsible to their investors if they reported actual news. this is why we need a strong PBS

That said, back 30 years ago when I published a magazine...a real one, full color glossy, sold on newsstands and in book stores in 17 countries...we used to receive a "bible" of publishing called "Folio." In the very first chapter of the very first book, they talked about the "responsibility" of publishing, and how the government actually looked at it as a very special right that few countries allowed. Their point was that we could just start up a publication and as long as we had a distributor -- which we did -- we could send our message literally around the world, without approval from the government. It was viewed as an awesome responsibility, and therefore it wasn't to be taken lightly.

Sadly, doesn't seem to be the case anymore. The only responsibility is to make money. If telling lies earns dividends, they'll tell lies. Dollars are the only responsibility.

.

whether the public chooses to be educated is up to themselves.

Sid

They shouldn't characterize things such as Ryan's budget proposal as being "brave". They shouldn't assign it any adjective.

Traditionally, people have relied on the "News" - whether TV, radio or newspapers - to give them facts and they can they make their own decisions. For the last 20 years or so, the "news" is nothing but "one side says this...but the other side says that". That doesn't help anyone!

The problem now is which facts, there are so many that it is an editorial choice as to which are the most newsworthy, and what media authority, BBC, AlJazeera or Fox, presents them.

Unfortunately, humans accept facts through emotional and subconscious filters, and that is exploitable, and needs attention when providing news to educate a populace.


"Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente in what Kahan has called a "culture war of fact." In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance."
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

and you can't educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated.

The internet lets people educate themselves AND participate in democracy.

Television is dead but like a zombie it goes on eating brains.

dimensions of their own communities, who study their own communities, collect the facts and share them as widely as possible. I think these little "free school"s would NOT be elective/political, though there'd have to be some way of finding those who represent the different demographics in a community. They need to be free from politics, so they can be responsible for one thing and one thing only, empirically answering the questions: Who are we? and What do we need/want?

so they can make decisions related to the Perfect Union they formed during the birth of the country.

they are just businesses like any other. If we want media to educate the population we need to stop slashing funding for PBS, only media like PBS would have a repsonsibility to educate us as they are public owned and therefore have no responsibility to make profit for investors.

I know it's the accepted modern dogma but IMO it's absurd. Almost every business has some stated purpose outside of sheer profit.

Your response works only if you have already accepted the belief that it is in the shareholder's best interests to maximize profit at the cost of, well, pretty much everything, including the public good. Shareholders are not robots. Like all people their best interests include the welfare of the society around them--and without which society they would never make money anyway.

Was the oil spill fiasco in BP shareholders' best interests? Was that "maximizing profit?"

Also, related to this thread: maybe we should consider whether the infotainment model has been proven to be more profitable. Has that really been settled? I suppose FOX's ratings would be a good argument for it. But against? What are the business downsides of infotainment? Surely there are some.

BP saved a lot of coin by taking the shortcuts they did, and they'll likely wiggle out of any payments to the folks whose lives they destroyed (just like Exxon did regarding the Valdez spill).

multinationals like Véolia, provide drinking water in France, bus service in canada, and pick up garbage in the usa, their only responsibility is to make money for the people who own shares of the company. as a company i expect them to lie, cheat, pollute, do anything they can to cut corners to make more profit. that is why i think the drinking water, buses and garbage collection should be public owned.

And there should be great variety in the media options available, such that public discourse doesn't stagnate and one voice does not come to speak for all.

The old-fashioned duty of the journalist--to find fact-checked stories that the public needs to hear--should never have been put aside.

It's not irresponsible to tell investors that a given organ will try to be as profitable as it can while still holding fast to standards of journalistic integrity. No one *has* to be infotainment. Investors looking for that can always go elsewhere. And anyway, there's social capital (I would think) in being one of the primary investors for a renowned news organ.