The Evolution of the Media Ecosystem
In a recent post Johnny Robish referred to “…a media ecosystem that amplified misinformation, entertained unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and discouraged audiences from taking concrete steps to protect themselves and others…”
Study Says Fox News Kept Millions From Taking Coronavirus Seriously
That got me to thinking about the ‘media ecosystem’ of my generation and why there is so much to criticize and complain about re the contemporary media environment….
“Weekly Reader was a weekly educational classroom magazine designed for children. It began in 1928 as My Weekly Reader. Editions covered curriculum themes in the younger grade levels and news-based, current events and curriculum themed-issues in older grade levels.
Many people still fondly remember the papers they read as children and how they looked forward to Friday afternoons when their teachers handed out the latest issue.
One of the best-known events in the magazine’s history was its quadrennial “Weekly Reader Student Presidential Election Poll”.
This survey of students in grades K through 12 began in 1956, when readers chose Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson.”
—-Paraphrased from Wikipedia
I was 10 years old in 1956. The media ecosystem we had back then was clearly superior to what 5th graders are exposed to today.
I became part of the ‘media ecosystem’ when I started delivering newspapers the following year.
When I turned the route over to my younger brother, I was delivering the ‘New Haven Register’ and the ‘New Haven Journal Courier’ every day to more than100 homes.
In addition, I picked up home delivery of the “West Haven Town Crier”, the local weekly, to about 50 houses on my route.
I was on my way to becoming a financially independent media mogul at the age of 11, until the age of 15, when I turned to being a musician for income….
But, I digress…
We were taught how to read and process ‘news’ as a significant element of our grade school curriculum in which our grammar school English department had a hand in teaching how to read and process information acquired through reports in electronic mass media or newspapers.
Today, children grow to adulthood with the most powerful mass communication devices known to humankind at their disposal, and yet the capacity and appetite for meaningful communication has been diminished seemingly by the very devices that should produce a completely different result:
06/29/2020 @ 9:13 am
It might be an interesting project to talk about why things changed. I’ll tell you one of the big ones:
The mainstream media didn’t turn Fox News into a pariah when it became a Republican organ. The turning of Fox News should have become a story, a constant story. When Rupert Murdoch was covering an election and gave a million dollar to one side he was covering, they should have called him out on it. Instead, they left Murdoch alone the way the Times would later leave Trump alone.
Though there is another part of the story. Possibly two parts. I’m thinking as I write here. One is the corporatization of the media, where news organizations became viewed as profit centers first and news organizations second. The second is media consolidation, which used to be illegal to a greater extent than it is now.
The optimistic thing now is that I believe the Washington Post has come up with a story of how many deaths Fox News misinformation is responsible for by COVID. From a discrediting standpoint that probably wouldn’t have much effect but from a liability standpoint I’m guessing we’re looking at a great deal more vulnerability. That organization could be brought down by lawsuits.
06/29/2020 @ 10:22 am
@Koshersalaami;
“That organization could be brought down by lawsuits.”
The 1st Amendment provides so much protection and insulation that liability resulting from faulty or false reporting is a virtual constitutional impossibility.
06/29/2020 @ 10:42 am
This isn’t shouting Fire! in a crowded theater? They killed people for political reasons.
06/29/2020 @ 12:18 pm
@Koshersalaami;
The problem, beyond the 1st Amendment hurdles, is proof of ‘causation’ in a suit for damages as a result of an intentional tort and/or the legal principle of ‘proximate cause’ in litigation for damages due to negligence.
The plaintiffs would be required to establish that the Fox network knew or had reason to know that people would die as a direct result of hearing/seeing their news broadcasts and/or the ‘opinions’ expressed by the various anchors and hosts.
Re ‘opinions’, facts don’t matter.
Re ‘news’ faulty or even false reporting of ‘facts’ is not ‘evidence ‘ of ‘malicious intent’ or ‘wanton negligence’…
“There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the “but for” test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. … Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred.” —Wikipedia
07/01/2020 @ 9:01 am
I think it might be possible to establish that chain. Proving that Fox knew shouldn’t be hard given the amount of medical information out there and their being a news organization. I might be wrong on what it would take to prove they knew, though there’s probably a smoking gun somewhere. Then evidence that people acted based on Fox’s reporting.
07/01/2020 @ 9:35 am
@Koshersalaami;
If Fox received notification that an unusually vulnerable or gullible group or individual was watching a particular program at a specific time AND then targeted that group or individual with a broadcast message that could foreseeably result in harm or injury to that individual or group OR others similarly situated, your case for liability against Fox is made….