It is rare that we get dreary days in Tallahassee but today is one of those. So, I just started writing. About 12 years ago I was giving a talk on terrorism to a local community group and one member of the audience talked about how his friends listen only to a particular television network for news. He said that some listen to Fox but only Fox. Others listen to CNN or MSNBC but only CNN or MSNBC. At the time I didn’t focus in on his point, but it certainly explains quite a bit in terms of the political discourse in America these days. I have been thinking extensively about free speech over the past several years. I was always taught, and I have always taught my students that free speech is essential to our democracy, that in a free marketplace of ideas the public will be able to evaluate competing arguments and policies and eliminate false claims and lies. According to the long-standing tradition in the US, the only threat to that free market for speech is the government. Thus, the US government is extremely limited in its ability to regulate speech because of the First Amendment.
I am not so sure that this framework helps to understand speech in today’s America. It is fairly clear to me that false claims and lies are no longer eliminated by free speech. False claims and lies fully compete with facts and truths. The Big Lie concerning the 2020 presidential election is the best or worst example. The Big Lie is believed by millions of viewers of the Fox/social media market despite absolutely no evidence to support it. All the Fox News Channel hosts knew that Biden had legitimately won in 2020 and that Trump loyalists saying the election was fraudulent had no evidence. Tucker Carlson admitted this, yet he continued to push the Big Lie because he was afraid that Fox would lose its audience to Newsmax and other right-wing media outlets that continued to promote the lie that Trump had won the election. The highest levels of the Fox Corporation knowingly permitted Fox News Channel personalities to spread lies and false conspiracy theories about the election to protect their market share and profits. Trial testimony during the Dominion law suit against Fox from Rupert Murdoch, the chair of the Fox Corporation at the time, shows that Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch, the executive chair and chief executive officer of the Fox Corporation, as well as Suzanne Scott, the chief executive officer of Fox News Media at the time, were all deeply involved in the question of how to deal with Trump’s lies and with the personalities who were echoing those lies, without losing viewership. All of these lies are reinforced by the social media algorithmic echo chamber. Survey after survey shows millions of people receive their news only from this market. They hear little to nothing else.
Selling untruths, false claims, or a particular perspective has become a new information business model via a social media information system that functions on an algorithmic echo chamber. This means that the threat to the free market for speech today is not the government but the private communication and information businesses. As was noted above Fox would not tell the facts of the 2020 election because it feared a loss in market share and profits. Selling a particular perspective, even false information, is important for Fox to maintain its market share and profits. Any threat to the free market for speech undermines the health of our democracy.
The problem is we no longer have a free marketplace of ideas. We are in market failure. Market failure refers to the inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market. Today we suffer from the inefficient distribution of facts and competing arguments and policies. Rather than one free market, the market has been divided into nearly closed and competing markets by communications and information businesses because it guarantees audience or market share and profits. It is a business model and as the audience member at my lecture put it, no one leaves their market.
There are many reasons to explain why an audience member doesn’t leave a particular market. There is a natural tendency for people to want to hear only what fits in with their own viewpoint or belief system. A psychologist would say we like to reduce cognitive dissonance. One reason for a college education is to teach critical thinking to our students, so that they will overcome this natural tendency to only view, listen, read, and believe something that fits into their own belief system.
There are a host of other interrelated factors that also explain why in today’s America we tend to stay in and cling to our market. These include the decline and near absence of truly local newspapers and information sources, less trust in traditional media sources, less trust in governing institutions, political polarization, increased diversity in the US, less knowledge of basic American government, less knowledge about basic economics, and a national government, especially the Congress, which many Americans believe does not adequately respond to their needs and fears. The tendency to stay in our information market is enabled by and sustained by the 24-hour news networks and the rise of social media and information technology and businesses. In this situation, false claims and lies cannot be eliminated in these closed markets by the viewers. The false claims and lies are reinforced and they are the only thing to be found.
I note that private companies are not restricted by the First Amendment. They can limit speech and create closed markets anytime and this is made easier with today’s social media technology. So, what can be done? Rather than attempt to legislate rules about social media or the 24-hour networks, as an educator my advice is to engage in critical thinking which means that one must diversify the news sources that one listens to or reads. This will take effort and time on your part. Let me say this again…this will take effort and time on your part. Do not follow news on face book, face book memes, twitter, or other social media. If an article is cited or written on social media, it is important to investigate and ask questions about the article, its source, and its author. One can find legitimate and authoritative news sources even on face book but please be careful. Be aware of sensationalized headlines. If the article or video has grammar or other obvious mistakes, this is a red flag. If the argument appears to be too simplistic, it more than likely is. Do not trust articles without an author listed. Check out the credentials of the author and the organization for which he/she works. Remember that images can be easily photoshopped to look authentic and with the dramatic growth in the use of artificial intelligence it can be almost impossible to identify the validity of pictures and oral and written statements. If statements of fact are given, check them out through an online fact checker site such as FactCheck.org, Snopes, OpenSecrets, PolitiFact, and ProPublica.
If you read articles from a particular website, such as Pew or Brookings, it is important to find out about the organization behind the website. Read the “about us” segment which will tell you the organization’s news gathering techniques, goals, and mission.
Read and listen to a variety of legitimate sources. Educate yourself so you can recognize a legitimate or reliable information source. In reading a newspaper, understand the difference between an editorial and a regular, content-based news article. My observations tell me that many do not understand the difference. If your city has a truly local newspaper, read it. National newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, and the Washington Post are reliable because the editors serve as fact checkers for the non-editorials and require reliable sources. I personally would also include the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in that list. All the above papers are ranked very factual when it comes to content-based stories or non-editorials.
Do not watch a steady diet of any 24-hour news networks. Pick one or two journalists on these networks that you fully trust. I personally read a variety of academics (political scientists, economists, and historians) and journalists from both the left and right. Remember also that when groups rank newspapers as left or right oriented, they are talking about editorials rather than content-based stories.
I also tell students that there are two types of opinions or editorials: informed and uninformed. Read journalists or experts who have a strong background in their subjects. Check out the credentials of the author. To put it simply you wouldn’t take advice from a plumber concerning your heart condition.
Ask one of your trusted former or current professors what he/she reads or listens to. I listen to the local National Public Radio (NPR) frequently and I have always recommended that my students do the same. I read both conservative and liberal academics and journalists. I read articles put out by academic think tanks, such as Brookings, but please remember that think tanks often represent a particular ideological perspective. I also like to watch and read news from the Guardian, the BBC, Univision, and Haaretz. Given my interests I also like to read La Prensa (Nicaragua) and 14yMedio (Cuba).
Finally, I note that we all have a lens or view of the world through which we interpret facts. People can identify the same set of facts yet have very different interpretations or opinions about how facts are connected and how those facts fit in with broader themes. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem we face today is that free speech does not allow us to determine the same set of facts. Remember that facts can be empirically assessed for accuracy. We must work from the same set of facts for a free marketplace of ideas and for democracy to function.
I have rambled on way too much today and I will stop. One day I will rewrite this into a real essay…
Comments