
Former Producer: Why I’m now leaving MSNBC - JumpCrisscross
https://www.arianapekary.net/post/personal-news-why-i-m-now-leaving-msnbc
======
drewwwwww
it’s interesting to consider that cable news networks operated via a sort of
primitive, relatively slower version of the youtube/facebook method of
radicalization-by-algorithm to drive further engagement in advertising
supported media.

unfortunately, i think if you fixed cable news tomorrow, it’s already well too
late.

~~~
jacknews
Yes the cat's out of the bag.

But look at incentives. If people are not rewarded for 'viral' news, they
probably won't bother to make it.

Of course for some people 'reward' is just the kick of seeing Rome burn. But
they're easier to spot.

------
gremlinsinc
I've thought about this a lot. I'd love to start my own 24/7 news channel.
That has a democratic process. You register, state your political preference:
Green, Lib, Democrat, Republican.

Then we try and fill 25% of journalists for each specific group giving a
broader opinion-set. If you feel a specific journalist doesn't match and
you're in that group you can vote to have them replaced.

Build a social network around this idea, and try and create some sort of
equilibrium. Push also for renewal of the 'fairness doctrine', and more
culpability for journalists in reporting the truth.

Imagine having a round table discussion for example with: Ana Kasparian
(Left), Donna Brazille (Left-center), Tucker Carlson (Right-center), Ron Paul
(Libertarian).

Sure it'll be a political bloodbath the first few months, but eventually there
might come some equal ground places where people can give and maybe we gain
back some integrity in journalism.

I wish we could get rid of talking heads altogether and just report the facts
as they lay and let people come to their own conclusions but...that cat is out
of the bag.

Next best thing is a network that has all view points and just rotates
through, 1pm Tucker, 2pm Ana, 3pm Donna, 4pm Ron ... etc (not necessarily
these people obviously, just an example).

------
goatherders
The two biggest problems in the USA:

1\. Education is not a priority. 2\. The populous by and large accepts cable
news as "news" and not as capitalist entertainment.

Solve the first problem and you solve the second - give it a decade or two and
this place isn't nearly as bad off as it's become in the last 20 years.

~~~
schnable
I don't think this is right at all. Higher education is correlated to treating
politics as a hobby (treating politics as sports, essentially) which is
exactly what drives the incentive to create a never ending news-outrage cycle.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-
hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/)

~~~
happytoexplain
A. I agree that treating politics as sports is ruining everything, but I don't
agree that "going to college" is a reasonable thing to point to as the source
of the problem.

B. The pros and cons of "higher education" is a drop in the bucket of reasons
US education is "bad". All the years prior to university are much more
important. Having gone through the system in "good" schools, I couldn't agree
with the parent post more. However, none of it can begin until the generic
stigma of "more education = bad" is destroyed (which probably first means
destroying the one real thing that is fueling that image, which is the price
of college and subsequent class warfare).

~~~
goatherders
Thank you. I don't understand why my original comment is receiving a number of
downvotes; the American public is wildly under-eductated considering the
resources available.

------
jacknews
Some things are not best suited to the free-market 'for profit' model of how
to get things done.

~~~
hirundo
True. But free, decentralized speech maps pretty well to free, decentralized
markets. A "free market of ideas" is the pitch. The alternative model of news
that's out there is mostly state-sponsored centralized news. Do you see that
as an improvement to the status quo? If not, what's a non-theoretical example
of an improved system?

There is non-profit news, e.g. NPR. But we're often told that it must be at
least partially state-sponsored to be viable. Making it more vulnerable to
state control. The model does seem to be disadvantaged in the marketplace
compared to for-profit news, judging by its relative scarcity. There doesn't
seem to be a way to make it dominant without legally restricting for-profit
competition, i.e. restricting free speech.

~~~
jacknews
I think the problem is intrinsic to the market model.

Free markets deliver what consumers want. But not necessarily what's best for
them, and certainly not necessarily what's best for society.

For many markets we can gloss over that to some extent, for example food. We
have cheap, abundant, and generally high quality food, but it's often
addictive (because that's what sells), and unhealthy, and imposes a very high
cost to our health as a society, and to many individuals.

But news/information is even more fundamental, it is the blood of democracy.
And it seems to be in rather ill-health of late.

~~~
hirundo
I don't question that people often want what is bad for them. That's
undeniable. I question the ability to consistently improve on those choices
via the judgement of politicians and bureaucrats. They seem at least as likely
to mandate choices that are worse than what we could chose for ourselves,
often even worse than average free choices.

~~~
jacknews
I certainly don't think the state should be picking the news.

But they could be paying for it, without requiring it to be centralized.

I imagine a similar model to how some countries fund political campaigns, in
an attempt to 'level the field' between rich and poorer parties. Winning votes
does not affect the budget next time, so in the case of news, there would be
less incentive to produce addictive, sensational material. Obviously there are
many issues with this kind of model too.

~~~
hirundo
He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the state is paying for it, at the
very least, the news station has to be careful not to be too critical. That's
a horrible handicap for an institution that we rely on as a check and balance
to the state.

