Ch 2.6 | 📰The media

🤝 Facts, truth, trust and democracy

Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa said this to Steven Colbert in discussing how social media has used free speech to stifle free speech:

If you don’t have facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without facts, truth and trust, we have no shared reality, we can’t solve any problems and we can have no democracy.

Building upon that foundation, I want to share a passage from "Repressive Tolerance,” published by Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore Jr. and Herbert Marcuse in 1965:

Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.

This is such an important concept regarding free speech that has been lost on many. In several sections of Fairness Matters, I discuss the First Amendment, and I want you to anchor yourself in the quote above when considering not only the original purpose of that amendment but also its applicability today.

One of the sad byproducts of the world we are living in is that finding the objective “truth” is very challenging. The media "establishment" in collusion with the Democratic Party and the GOP are intentionally seeking to divide us by undermining the very shared understanding that binds us as a nation. When combined with a failure of our education system at a macro level, we are in peril of losing the country we love!

(Editors Note: Having spent more than 25 years in newsrooms, I strongly disagree with suggestions that the political parties and the media are conspiring in some industry-wide scheme in order to undermine the country. Yes, there are media platforms that are heavily biased to one side or another. But most mainstream reporters, in my experience, are more guilty of chasing an audience than trying to please the left or the right. The seismic changes in the media industry, with print revenue disappearing and digital revenue dominated by Google and Facebook, has left news companies fighting for clicks and views. That reality leads publishers and editors to make different decisions than they might have made 20 years ago and has made it easier for biased newsrooms like the Daily Beast and the Daily Caller, like Huffington Post and OAN, to distort the landscape. This has only become further complicated as editors and reporters have wrestled in recent years with moving from a “just the facts, tell both sides” approach to one weighted more on disproving falsehoods and calling out dangers to democracy. Call it the Trump Effect. While Andy and I disagree on some of these issues, our thinking comes together later in this section.)

It's become too easy to digest the “talking points” that we are inundated with on a daily basis. Absent a conscious commitment to researching each issue from all sides, we are all susceptible to believing the propaganda we are being fed.

But don’t think this is a new phenomenon; it has merely been accelerated by technology.

To make my point, Thomas Jefferson summarized the value of trusted media to a democracy, saying if he had to choose between 

a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

in 1845 Edgar Allan Poe wrote: 

Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.

And in terms of the business model of the news media, at the end of the 1890s, during the time of the Spanish-American War, William Randolph Hearst ran a newspaper that relied on sensationalizing stories of drama and violence and gave birth to “yellow journalism” He coined the term “If it bleeds, it ledes.” 

Fast forward to the present day. The media business is a mess, and Donald Trump undermined the press by saying that anything negative about him was “fake news." Much of the country is divided and audiences turn to sources of news and opinion that only serve to reinforce their own world view. People are conditioned to disbelieve anything that doesn’t conform. So it’s not surprising that most Americans take a dim view of the media. 

1. “Today, the US media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.” (Columbia Journalism Review)

2. “In 2021, 83 percent of Americans saw ‘fake news’” as a ‘problem,

3. 56 percent — mostly Republicans and independents — agreed that the media were ‘truly the enemy of the American people,’ according to Rasmussen Reports.” (CJR)

4. “The Internet has entered people’s lives at a pace that makes the expansion of television look anemic. … It follows that the Internet would have a version of ‘yellow journalism.’” (Scientologists Taking Action Against Discrimination) But it’s also much harder to regulate the media given both its ubiquity and the fact that the internet is a bidirectional medium that has enabled anyone, regardless of qualifications, to become publishers. Challenging to say the least!

5. In July 2023, Gallup released a new survey with a jarring piece of information: Americans’ confidence in newspapers and television news has plummeted to an all-time low.

Examine the irresponsible journalism following Hamas' attack on Oct. 7, 2023. The National Review summed up my thoughts in an article titled, “The Media Will Never Forgive Israel for Not Bombing That Hospital.”

The free press is supposed to operate from a set of principles, working within established guardrails to spare readers the publication of false information, including hoaxes and lies that may incite violence or escalate preexisting hostilities.

All bets are off, however, when news editors have a deep-seated psychological need for a story to be true. And on this score, American media failed miserably this past week when major outlets falsely reported an Israeli missile strike had hit the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza, leveling it completely and killing at least 500 civilians.

🤪Access to information is not making us smarter

Who would have thought that providing ubiquitous information to the population would lead to the dumbing down of America. But here it is in Psychology Today from back in 2016. 

At a time when our nation faces critical issues surrounding global terrorism, national security, economic stability and the education of our children–the tenor of the campaign trail has become completely unhinged from common sense. We remain fixated on Hillary’s private emails and pantsuits, Trump’s little hands and private parts, Fiorina’s face, Rubio’s height, Christie’s weight or Cruz’s wife. We’ve regressed into a nation of fifth graders running amuck at recess.

The influence of corporate interests controlling the messages we receive is nothing new. If this weren't so terrifying it would be funny: Check out this segment from a March 1998 episode of “Saturday Night Live.” The bit, a parody of "Schoolhouse Rock!" called "It's a Media-Opoly," is a scathing critique of corporate media ownership, including NBC's ownership by General Electric/Westinghouse!

💣The weaponizing of media in America

At the heart of our "problem" is the media (all forms of media, not just the "liberal media establishment"). Our media has been weaponized against us and is now imperiling and undermining the very foundation of our nation. As such, it’s hard to have any conversation about politics without first understanding the role that the media plays in the context of not only the First Amendment but also the rise of the internet, which decimated the news business. This sincerely keeps me up at night! 

I have worked in and around newsrooms for much of my career. I have seen best management practices applied to publishers so that they have zero influence over editors’ news decisions.

These once-vaulted standards have been obliterated as media companies scrounge for ad dollars that used to flow their way but not are concentrated in Google and Facebook. Having been an early digital media executive back in 1995, I had a front seat to the launch of the first commercial web-media enterprises. During that summer, we all pivoted from a subscriber-based model with a “hard” paywall, to an ad supported model. The open internet ended the paid newspaper subscription model and forced newsroom operations to become even more sensationalized to drive audiences to create profits for their corporate ownership. That was the tipping point and the start of the end of credible news. Once advertising became the sole source of revenue, news became all about clicks and ratings! And what better way to drive audience and viewership than to push dogma and fear mongering. And a once virtuous circle ended.

Since we can't put the proverbial genie back in the bottle, the only way to get this back in check is to regulate it and mandate a standard of conduct and care that will protect the American public! 

Here is a very insightful interview with Disney CEO Bob Iger from March 2022. Jon Stewart asked whether someone will generate better quality news and whether Iger would run it. Iger says it’s not an original idea but he hasn’t said yes to such questions because he’s “not sure how practical or effective it would be." Damn.

🤬The Fairness Doctrine 

I am an ardent believer that the Federal Communications Commission should re-implement the Fairness Doctrine (repealed by Ronald Reagan) and apply it to all forms of transmissions. If you are unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine is not what Fox News calls “fair and balanced” (although I’m convinced Roger Ailes came up with that slogan as a result of his efforts to repeal the Fairness Doctrine).

The Fairness Doctrine was rooted in the media world of 1949. Lawmakers became concerned that given their near-monopoly on television audiences, the three main networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements:

1. It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest.

2. It required them to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine in 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, when journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on.

The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until the Reagan administration. In 1985, thanks in large part to Ailes, the FCC (under Chairman Mark Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980) released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine. It’s worth noting that the FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the agency had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical." The bill passed, but the legislation was vetoed by Reagan. This one veto changed the course of history and we lost one of the only fulcrums that we had in our fight against our current media onslaught.

While it doesn’t mention the Fairness Doctrine, here’s an interesting article from Tangle News on “How to Actually Win Back Trust in News.” Worth a read.

🖕Rush Limbaugh is born

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine opened the door for a small-time radio host, Rush Limbaugh, to push the boundaries of acceptable political speech. 

Limbaugh found his audience in conservative America, where he was able to take advantage of the lack of oversight and began promoting a world view of religious conservatism that had been previously untapped. He railed against the feminist movement, coining the term “Feminazis.” He aggressively pushed the concept that if you were a successful white person, it was through your hard work and effort; if you were a successful Black person, it was through preferential treatment and quotas. 

He rallied his predominantly white audiences by telling them that the bad things in your life weren’t your fault, they happened because we lived in a society giving money to welfare queens living off the government teat. HIV was a punishment for the immorality of gays. He called Chelsea Clinton the “Clintons’ dog.” He insisted that rape, under certain circumstances, was acceptable. White Christians began growing more and more angry at what they perceived was a government that wasn’t giving them a voice.

🦊Fox: When ‘news’ is not news

Remember good ol’ Roger Ailes, who was a "media consultant" for Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush? Well it was that very same Roger Ailes who launched Fox News for Rupert Murdoch. 

In his early years as a media consultant, Ailes learned to embrace television’s limitations. In a 1971 speech he called “Candidate + Money + Media = Votes,” he said:

Television rarely, if ever, tells the whole story. It is imperative that we begin to understand what TV can and cannot do.

If you still watch the news, I'd encourage you to ensure that you leave your echo chambers daily! If you’re going to watch 30 mins of Fox, then it’s incumbent upon you to spend 30 mins watching CNN or other outlets to ensure you have a “fair and balanced” view and you can draw your own conclusions. Even if your impressions are not based upon facts, at least let them be based upon opposing opinions. 

Here’s something that boggles my mind: Did you know that Fox News does not consider itself or its anchors part of a “news organization”? 

In a report that aired on CBS’ ''Sunday Morning” in 2017 about the polarization of politics and the media in the Age of Trump, Ted Koppel charged Fox News host Sean Hannity with contributing to the increased antipathy toward opposing viewpoints that is prevalent in America. Koppel told Hannity that he is “bad for America." In explaining why, Koppel said, “You have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts.” Hannity made no qualms about presenting his own conservative agenda, but objected to Koppel characterizing his viewers as not being able to discriminate opinion/editorial from news. Koppel's response was spot on, saying he objects “to editorial taking over the front page and doesn't want editorial to be the economic engine that drives news." 

Amen! Koppel hit the nail on the head! 

And frankly, Hannity is wrong – most Fox viewers are unaware it's an opinion show! Even if they know it is, they ignore facts and choose to rely upon opinion, which reinforces their view of the world. 

To further drive the point home, Fox News won a court case by “persuasively” arguing that no “reasonable viewer” takes Tucker Carlson (since fired from Fox) seriously. Here is their defense:

The "general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that Tucker Carlson is not “'stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary."

I kid you not. Fox News does not believe that they report the news!

Here is an interview from 2004, in which Jon Stewart tells Carlson to "stop hurting America." Wow! 

And, consider the texts that came out during the Dominion defamation lawsuit against Fox and specifically Carlson’s fraudulent behavior not only condoned but promoted by Fox.

Here is Sam Harris’ commentary, which is spot on. 

Still not convinced? Well, if Fox were a legitimate news organization, wouldn’t newsroom leaders had felt compelled to air the Jan 6 hearings? Do you disagree that our news outlets have a responsibility to educate and inform our citizens? Isn’t it important to include Fox News viewers in the discussion and allow them to decide for themselves the credibility of the testimony? There is only one explanation: Fox News is a part of the GOP propaganda machine. According to Bloomberg News:

The first public hearing of the Congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol left no doubt as to its position on who was responsible. House members labeled the deadly attempt to block the transfer of power an “attempted coup” and said it was the bloody culmination of a seven-part plan that began before the 2020 election—a plan ultimately moved forward by one person. The bipartisan committee alleged criminal acts by Donald Trump and his aides, punctuating arguments with gruesome video of his follower’s doing violence to Capitol police, along with similarly powerful witness testimony.

But Fox made the decision to push coverage to its less-watched business network.

Let’s look at an interesting article from Tangle, a nonpartisan political newsletter where the publishers summarize the best arguments from the right and the left on one big debate in American politics every day. They are essentially demonstrating the power of the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a great resource to subscribe to! It’s quickly becoming my go-to news outlet.

In “Fox News gets caught,” Tangle examines messages at the heart of Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News. How can anyone with a shred of credibility continue to support Fox News? In court filings, Dominion released volumes of internal emails and text messages between high-ranking Fox executives and some of its most visible on-air personalities. Those messages showed executives and hosts expressing fear that they were losing audience members by not giving air time to claims the election was stolen, despite their belief that the claims were not true. 

Here is more of Tangle’s coverage, brilliant as always.

So the question is: Do you believe that Fox is good for America? Before you answer, consider this a 2022 NPR/Ipsos poll showed that Republicans “who get their news from Fox News and conservative media were more likely to believe false or misleading narratives,” and “were also more likely to believe that these claims were ‘completely true.’”

But it’s not just the Murdochs who are fueling the flames of discord in America. Let's look at what Sinclair Broadcast Group is doing at the local news level. Sinclair is controlled by the descendants of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. This family-owned business is the second-largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations, owning or operating a total of 185 stations across the country in 86 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are in the South and Midwest. Did you know that Sinclair required hundreds of local stations to run editorials by Boris Epshteyn (an advisor to Donald Trump) and terrorism alerts, and even forced local news anchors to read editorials mirroring Trump's denunciation of the news media for bias and fake news?

Need evidence that Sinclair is pushing propaganda? Please watch this video showing CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates all owned by Sinclair sharing the exact same messages. It’s insane to watch the propaganda machine in action!

☺️ The liberal media

But let’s not simply vilify Fox and other right-leaning media outlets. The liberal media establishment is not any better.

Take for example, the Covid-19 pandemic. The “experts” got a lot wrong when it came to the pandemic. And while the liberal media might have appeared more “thoughtful” in their coverage, they too displayed the type of media bias that we should all be against. Unfortunately, even with the hindsight, nobody seems to agree on what we got right and what we got wrong.

More than 1 million people died from or with the virus right here in America, impacting an untold number of families. Thousands of others were injured by the vaccines meant to save us from that virus or are living with never-ending symptoms after contracting it, which is to say nothing of the pain for businesses or the learning loss from school closures.

And then there’s the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The 45th president of the United States may have been a Russian agent. Maybe bias and hatred fueled and manipulated by the Democratic Party permeated and tainted the FBI. Amidst all this, some groundbreaking journalism has given us an unprecedented and shocking look at how our government, mainstream media and Big Tech conglomerates work behind the scenes on everything from the Trump-Russia collusion narrative to where Covid-19 originated. 

The liberal media has a history of acting as though something obviously or probably not true is, in fact, completely true, and any questioning of that supposed truth isn’t just ill-informed but heretical. For example:

• Those who even considered the lab leak theory were obviously trying to veil their anti-Asian hate.

• Gender-affirming care for children was obviously good medicine.

• Defunding the police would obviously make cities safer.

• The diversity, equity and inclusion complex was obviously a good investment, making all of us less systematically racist.

• The Hunter Biden laptop was obviously a nonstory.

• The climate alarmists were obviously right that our planet was on schedule to implode shortly.

Until, suddenly, quietly, all those stories started to collapse.

If you don't read Bari Weiss or listen to her podcast, she is truly worth your time. She attempted to explain "Why the Free Press Exists, in Three Stories." What the article highlights is how the mainstream media is doing us a disservice.

📵Social media

Social media should not be exempt from scrutiny nor regulation. Have you watched this video where Sasha Baron Cohen talks about social media as the biggest propaganda machine in history? It’s quite brilliant. 

One of my favorite statements he made:

If we make that our aim – if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses – then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free speech and free expression.

Do you have a different point of view?

While some will say free speech should be left universally unchecked, I disagree. The First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in speech. But a private company? That’s another story.

What's most interesting about the Elon Musk-endorsed “Twitter Files” is not that Twitter (now X) was monitoring content on its platform — it's that the company went beyond simple fact checking and, akin to the point that Cohen makes in the video above, became its own propaganda machine. This is where our own biases can taint our analysis. My suggestion of applying the Fairness Doctrine would have the effect of solving the bias problem. The application of the law should be this simple: Present all sides of an argument and hold any publisher accountable for spreading lies! 

There are different ways we can approach this. One way would be to rewrite the libel laws to more closely resemble the British model, which places a much heavier burden on publishers and make it easier for people to sue.

Bottom line: I don’t believe politicians or the media should be held to a different standard than a corporation that is subject to truth in advertising laws 

Truth must take precedent.

🤡You are ‘the product’

Bear in mind, this is a problem of our making. We’ve allowed ourselves to be exploited and manipulated! In fact, for those who are looking at the big picture, world-famous American sculptor and video artist Richard Serra seems to be turning into the oracle. In 1973, he said: “if something is free, you’re the product”. Back then, his comment was about how the product of television was the audience and that it was, in fact, the television that delivered people to an advertiser. This was the core message of his seven-minute film with Carlota Fey Schoolman, “Television Delivers People.”

At the time, as he points out in the film, there was no such thing as mass media in the U.S. other than television.

Today, websites, apps, streaming and social media deliver the people to the advertiser. To add fuel to fire, the ability to capture data and turn it into insights to help advertisers “better engage with audiences” makes for even better ROIs but reinforces the fact that “people are the product.” Facebook shamelessly admits it. Sheryl Sandberg, when she was COO of Facebook, said in an interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that opting out of sharing information with advertisers would be a paid product. Many people construed it as confirmation of the fact that people who want privacy must expect to pay for it (going forward).

Unfortunately, existing regulations aren’t suited to deal with the privacy issues at stake and new regulations are only going to protect certain citizens in certain pockets of the world.

We need the Fairness Doctrine restored and applied to all forms of media (cable, satellite, internet) to ensure all issues of importance are explored from all perspectives to ensure an informed electorate. The echo chambers are taking us down a rabbit hole that we may not recover from. Truth and facts must once again have meaning. Rational thought and common sense must return to politics on both sides of the aisle. The far left are as dangerous as the far right. All forms of extremism – whether political, religious or other – should be abhorrent to anyone with a rational thinking mind! 

If we don’t regain our footing, we are heading for a grim future for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. Intelligent, thoughtful citizens need to band together around a common understanding of what is right and just. Most of us are either just right or just left of center. Most of us are not on the extreme right or left. It’s on us to bring the conversation back to rational and important issues and not let clickbait destroy our country. Advertisers need to pull their ads from all forms of media that fan these flames. If the ads stop flowing, the content will change.

Critical thought is needed to form a well-reasoned opinion. 

Do you see how the Fairness Doctrine could be a useful check on the media’s ability to manipulate the American people? It will never be reinstated unless we "unrig" the system!

⚖️’’Truth in advertising should apply to political ads

We discuss the concept of free speech again in "The culture wars." 

But I want to discuss it here in the context of "political speech." It's understandable that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the government couldn't infringe on a person's right to speak out loudly in criticism of the government. How else could we fight tyranny and oppression and foster a free and open society? 

But, not all speech is "protected" speech. 

The Federal Trade Commission is empowered to police advertisements to protect us from predatory/dangerous products to prevent companies from making false claims and deceiving an unsuspecting public. Yet, politicians can lie with impunity! And while there are consequences for "illegal" speech in certain circumstances, including libel or slander (see "Jury's $148M verdict in Rudy Giuliani's defamation suit"), the question is: What is actually in the best interests of the Republic?

Why is it acceptable that the same rules don’t apply to political ads? Well, that’s the way our courts have interpreted the Constitution. 

I hear from people on both sides of the aisle saying that free speech is more important than censoring lies. Is that true? Do you believe that political speech of any kind or nature should deserve to be protected by the First Amendment? You Would have supported Hitler’s right to free speech if he was an American politician? The Supreme Court has stated that “the ability to criticize the government and government officials is central to the meaning of the First Amendment.” Somehow that has been used to justify outright lies under the guise of “opinion.”

Do you think it’s right that the law should protect politicians who lie with impunity? Do you believe it is acceptable that the proverbial bar has been set so low that everyone believes it’s acceptable for Trump to lie because “all politicians lie?” While that may be a sad truth, don’t you see a difference between “puffery” and outright lies or, worse yet, fraud? Can you see the damage that Trump’s lies have wrought? How can we justify turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the lies that Trump is spreading? Do you worry at all about living in a country where the public cannot find any consensus on media credibility?

That might be an unpopular idea, but the founding fathers didn’t have to contend with the internet or foreign government manipulation or political hacking, etc. It’s one thing to protect free speech when you’re dealing with the “town crier,” it's another thing when content can go viral and reach 5 billion people instantly. The media and social media have attempted to tackle misinformation and disinformation through reporters’ fact-checking and programs like X’s Community Notes. But once something goes viral, there’s no chance of catching up.

To preserve our democracy, are you willing to open your mind to the need to revisit the concept that all political speech is guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment?

This will never happen unless we "unrig" the system!

It’s time for stronger measures to prevent foreign interests from manipulating the American people 

Did you know that restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcast stations have been in effect for over 100 years. Unfortunately, because of initiatives taken during former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s tenure to spur foreign investment and the changed composition of the FCC under Trump, foreign investment in media was encouraged. Does that sit right with you? Again, just another example of where our leaders’ place their priorities.

Are you OK with our enemies abroad weaponizing our media in every form, including social media (maybe especially social media) as a propaganda machine that is tearing us apart? In NPR’s article “Foreign Interference Persists And Techniques Are Evolving, Big Tech Tells Hill,” we learn that Facebook shut down almost 2 billion fake accounts and 18 coordinated influence networks in the first half of 2020. They included three Russian and two Iranian networks and two based in the United States.

🔮The future of media

Not to really freak you out here, but artificial intelligence has the potential to further weaponize media in a way that we can not yet fathom. Here is a report from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. In the cover letter by the commission’s chair, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt writes:

As a bipartisan commission of 15 technologists, national security professionals, business executives, and academic leaders, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) is delivering an uncomfortable message: America is not prepared to defend or compete in the AI era. This is the tough reality we must face. And it is this reality that demands comprehensive, whole-of-nation action. Our final report presents a strategy to defend against AI threats, responsibly employ AI for national security, and win the broader technology competition for the sake of our prosperity, security, and welfare. The U.S. government cannot do this alone. It needs committed partners in industry, academia, and civil society. And America needs to enlist its oldest allies and new partners to build a safer and freer world for the AI era.

If we don’t get a handle on this now, AI will change everything. 

To conclude, I have voted with my proverbial feet when it comes to the media. I no longer watch local news, nor national news, nor cable news, nor read any “mainstream“ newspapers, I avoid social media like the plague. I will no longer allow the media to poison my mind. I am very selective in which sources of information I consume. It’s critical to my state of mind, to my level of contentment and happiness. If we can’t enact the changes that are necessary to bring about change, then I will do my best to undermine their business model. I am no longer the ”product” they are monetizing!