This article, as with many like it, ignores the fact that trust in "traditional media" is at an all time low globally. That's not because people enjoy fake news on social media, it's because traditional media has failed them. There are many studies that look at bias in traditional media. But journalists within that system completely ignore that aspect (it's harder to deal with), and simply assume they just need to embrace videos or new formats.
But it’s undemocratic to ask the people whether it’s working, the democratic way is to ask the media if they are doing a good job and then tell the people they are wrong.
Traditional media is running their own LLM before LLM even existed. They absorbed their own bubble of information and hallucinate their narrative. I don’t mean it in a bad way. That’s how our tribal brain works, come up with stories with limited exposure to the world.
Journalist argues journalists are important.
But honestly, the answer is no. Traditional Media is biassed opinion wrapped up as fact.
We can't have a discussion about "traditional media" until we talk about the perverse incentives of advertising.
Right now all media is focused on driving eyes to ads and data harvesting and that is it. There is no "defense of democracy" or any other high minded fantasy morals at play here.
It's a business like any other, only it's been granted vast protections from the repercussions of its actions.
I would argue traditional media need subsidies similar to those that exist in most democratic states for healthcare
The press should be strong and independent. Subsidies undermines independence.
Um, has the author not been paying attention to what's going on with traditional media?
lol. Wait til they find out that algorithms work on popularity. Aka democracy.
democracy is deliberate decision-making, not selection of something to force down based on popularity
Yes it is the deliberate mechanism of deciding by popularity.
That is really roundabout way of advocating for limiting the franchise.
The confusion of democracy with populism seems to be a trend over the past decade. Popularity is not democracy. In fact it’s often best if everyone is a little bit unhappy with whatever concession they are making.
How can you tell the difference in a democratic system between something being popular and it being democratic?
[deleted]