$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 70.92

4,904 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
30.9% of Goal | 28 Days Left

Support:

Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I was listening to posts that talked about how little we trust government these days, but I think that comes from how little many people trust almost any information these days. I feel the situation has been largely amplified by intentionally inflaming distrust of many once trusted institutions. I am going to focus on news organizations since that is perhaps one of the most distrusted areas by many.

Yes, it has been brewing a long time (and most here know quite a bit about it since we talk about it often), but you know what happens when you don't trust anyone who gives the data? You have people full of misinformation, and when you do not have the correct information, you often do not make the choices you would have otherwise.

And, my recommendation is to allow a certification for news organizations that allows bipartisan* oversight to ensure that it is giving information about both sides (similar to how the Fairness Doctrine had). It wouldn't be required of any organization, but it would be a voluntary system. If an organization allowed such oversight, they could claim compliance and perhaps get more viewership because of it.

It also would require the organization to do sufficient vetting of stories before publishing to decrease mis-information. If said organization has a branch that speculates or writes opinions, it must be clearly separate from the certified news in such a way that it is not mistaken.

I know I'd be interested to hear news from such an organization so I didn't have to read so many sources in an attempt to get balanced information.

I have been mulling this over for a long time and have often felt it was sad to lose the Fairness Doctrine, but definitely agreed it was wrong to force an organization to comply with a similar standard. Allowing it to optionally comply would be different.

I first just want to know if done well, people would think this is a good idea. Please only answer in one poll (whichever way you tend to lean most in the recent year or two).

Poll: Lean right - news organization opinion
For those that lean right - would you be interested in reading news from a news organization that is has certified balanced and vetted stories?
Yes - would wish it to be my main news organization
Yes - but would still mostly rely on my current news organizations
No - but willing to read it occasionally
No
      4 answers
Poll created by xuzuthor

Poll: Lean left - news organization opinion
For those that lean left - would you be interested in reading news from a news organization that is has certified balanced and vetted stories?
Yes - would wish it to be my main news organization
Yes - but would still mostly rely on my current news organizations
No - but willing to read it occasionally
No
      17 answers
Poll created by xuzuthor
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
And boardgame reviewers should have no bias whatsoever.

These reviewers who love meaty games should insert no opinion at all when they review more RSP friendly games.

How in the world can an honest game player be expected to find unbiased game reviews unless the gov't certified all reviews are completely balanced?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
And boardgame reviewers should have no bias whatsoever.

These reviewers who love meaty games should insert no opinion at all when they review more RSP friendly games.

How in the world can an honest game player be expected to find unbiased game reviews unless the gov't certified all reviews are completely balanced?


Board game reviews are not important.

News and election information can be. It is important to have accurate information.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
I voted in both polls since I don't lean either way.

Interesting idea, but it clashes with the First Amendment (freedom of the press). A lot of (print) journalists have discussed some type of professional organization to create standards and reward journalists who comply with those standards, but it never got past the discussion stage. Given the corporate ownership of more than half of America's newspapers, it's a given that profits are the only concern, as these organizations went into debt to purchase said newspapers and are scrimping on everything to pay off the loans.

Nice idea in theory, impossible to implement in practice.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
xuzuthor wrote:


Board game reviews are not important.


Fuck thyself.

Apparently Trump said pussy 10 years ago. That's the biggest news story of this whole election.

They are at least as important as that. I know I said pussy 10 years ago. I am quite sure it isn't important.

Did you say pussy 10 years ago, and how important is it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
xuzuthor wrote:
Yes, it has been brewing a long time (and most here know quite a bit about it since we talk about it often), but you know what happens when you don't trust anyone who gives the data? You have people full of misinformation, and when you do not have the correct information, you often do not make the choices you would have otherwise.



People could at least choose to be skeptical of or ignore misinformation. If they're being fed like mushrooms and inflamed with distrust it's because they're not self possessed critical thinkers and there's no news organization that's going to change that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I voted in both polls since I don't lean either way.

Interesting idea, but it clashes with the First Amendment (freedom of the press). A lot of (print) journalists have discussed some type of professional organization to create standards and reward journalists who comply with those standards, but it never got past the discussion stage. Given the corporate ownership of more than half of America's newspapers, it's a given that profits are the only concern, as these organizations went into debt to purchase said newspapers and are scrimping on everything to pay off the loans.

Nice idea in theory, impossible to implement in practice.


But since it is voluntary and not required, it would not violate it.

All news could exist how it is. They just wouldn't have that certification.

The certification would not be required to be able to do anything that the media currently does. As soon as it would be required, then it would be an issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
remorseless1 wrote:
Nice idea in theory, impossible to implement in practice.


I think Carlin's right. Maybe it's the public that sucks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
red black wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
Yes, it has been brewing a long time (and most here know quite a bit about it since we talk about it often), but you know what happens when you don't trust anyone who gives the data? You have people full of misinformation, and when you do not have the correct information, you often do not make the choices you would have otherwise.



People could at least choose to be skeptical of or ignore misinformation. If they're being fed like mushrooms and inflamed with distrust it's because they're not self possessed critical thinkers and there's no news organization that's going to change that.


You are putting this too simply.

Not everyone has time to be an expert on everything. They end up relying on information from something, but it would be nice to know that they are getting the more of a full picture of that information (and especially for combating misinformation from improperly vetted stories).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I'm not sure how much such an agency would have to publish if it could only print what a bipartisan group found "fair".

Anyway, nothing prevents this from happening right now. Form a group and start issue a certification. I think what you'll find is that no matter how "nonpartisan" a particular group is, a significant portion of people are going to disagree.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:


Board game reviews are not important.


Fuck thyself.

Apparently Trump said pussy 10 years ago. That's the biggest news story of this whole election.

They are at least as important as that. I know I said pussy 10 years ago. I am quite sure it isn't important.

Did you say pussy 10 years ago, and how important is it?



No. He bragged about being able to repeatedly get away with sexual assault.

Did you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
The implementation details are the hardest. The top issues being:
1) Who does the oversight (as there is more of a variety than just left and right)?
But, how extreme of representation should be there is more so the question.

2) Who pays for the oversight?
At least some/most would come from news organization, but should all of it? And if it was too expensive, would no news organization wish to get certified? Is it in the nations interest to have such a news organization enough to cover some of the cost?

3) What needs oversight?
On a 2 or more sided issue, how much time must be spent on each? And, if one side is very unpopular or even destructive it obviously should not be legitimized. This is likely where the bipartisan (or whoever was decided by #1) panel comes into play. If all sides find it awful, it obviously requires no discussion. I feel this is an issue, but more so shows why #1 is an issue since more than just left and right should be represented.

4) Would the oversight have to take place before the news is aired or would the oversight come after and impose penalties if issues are too frequent?

In the 1st, the committee may try to silence stories they don't wish to be aired by continually pretending it has some violation it does not.

In the 2nd, the committee would have to create generic guidelines for the stations to abide by. It would have to give quite a bit of nuance so as to know how far to go in covering both sides so as not to give a voice to hardcore hate groups without allowing people to simply label groups as hate groups to silence them.

Edit:

Forgot an important point:

5) How much time devoted to various sides and stories?
One could present stories in a fair way but only report negative stories about one side and positive stories about another - so even with everything done right above, it could still be partisan.

This is complicated though as sometimes they might just be more negative news on one side or the other. I would assume that it would be up to oversight to determine that they are not skewing unfairly in other direction (by either not airing news or over-airing other news).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
xuzuthor wrote:
I was listening to posts that talked about how little we trust government these days, but I think that comes from how little many people trust almost any information these days. I feel the situation has been largely amplified by intentionally inflaming distrust of many once trusted institutions. I am going to focus on news organizations since that is perhaps one of the most distrusted areas by many.
The problem in your analysis is assuming that journalism was ever clean. May I introduce you to the "once trusted institution" of journalism in 1800:

Quote:
Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
And, point 5 is definitely tricky and the most worrisome.

The oversight should not be iron fisted, but thinking of a way to prevent that while still preventing the organization from skewing towards a political ideology would be difficult.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:


Board game reviews are not important.


Fuck thyself.

Apparently Trump said pussy 10 years ago. That's the biggest news story of this whole election.

They are at least as important as that. I know I said pussy 10 years ago. I am quite sure it isn't important.

Did you say pussy 10 years ago, and how important is it?


THE CONTROVERSY IS NOT ABOUT VULGARITY IT'S ABOUT CONSENT

ARGHHHHHHHHH
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
xuzuthor wrote:
I was listening to posts that talked about how little we trust government these days, but I think that comes from how little many people trust almost any information these days. I feel the situation has been largely amplified by intentionally inflaming distrust of many once trusted institutions. I am going to focus on news organizations since that is perhaps one of the most distrusted areas by many.
The problem in your analysis is assuming that journalism was ever clean. May I introduce you to the "once trusted institution" of journalism in 1800:

Quote:
Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."


First, the Fairness Doctrine didn't exist back then. (1949-1987)

Second, this is about a certification for news media. It isn't stopping anyone from calling people names. As I said, it's not mandatory. Plus, it's about reporting fairly rather than only saying nice things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
xuzuthor wrote:
And, my recommendation is to allow a certification for news organizations that allows bipartisan* oversight to ensure that it is giving information about both sides (similar to how the Fairness Doctrine had).


Who certifies the certifiers?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.