Problem: Yellow journalism has been around a long time. Slander and innuendo has ruled politics for centuries. Without facts and trust in those facts a democracy will lead to the best liar being elected.
Our current media is owned by corporations and pretend to speak of news while interpreting the news for us, becoming spin doctors for the left and right wing positions or corporate positions stated as truth. We all know which channels and papers are right and left and so rather than pick and judge each issue individually we find it easier to go with the left or the right mantra repeated daily. These biases even start to affect the people we associate with and after a while one side cannot talk to the other, so each side hardens their positions cutting off discourse among our citizens.
Solutions: The media needs to be split into News Shows or Opinion Shows
News shows which only report facts with no interpretations involved, people are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions. If these organizations report facts that are found to be false they are fined 1 million dollars for each repetition of the falsehood they report and those monies go to care for the homeless in the area of the broadcast.
Opinion shows will be labeled as such be required to have all sides of an issue represented. Each side whether in newspapers or in debates must by law have the arguments of each opposing opinion. This would help people weigh the issues and the differing views on the issues.
Fairness Doctrine – needs to be brought back or we have no hope of Discourse or Democracy.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[4]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]
While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[7] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
Deep Fake Technology – This is Artificial Intelligence Video Technology which allows anyone to make a video of anyone you want saying anything you want them to say – or doing anything you want them to do in the video !
Add this to our current media spin doctors and no one will be able to trust anything they see or hear.
Not only are we causing a divide in our own country but opening up our Country to Foreign Influence.
Laura Galante: How (and why) Russia hacked the US election | TED Talk
Rest In Peace – Democracy !
Your Ideas: If you have suggestions please send them to Ken@AmericanPoliticalParty.US