Guest Opinion Post from Lee Abrams –
I have been discussing the American information crisis for quite some time now, and it seems that we are reaching a crucial point especially in front of elections . The perceived credibility of mainstream news is at an all-time low, especially among younger audiences who are turning away from traditional media. This has resulted in a national opinion that is often based on sources rife with misinformation and nonsense.
To reverse this trend before it spirals into chaotic misinformation, we need to implement radical redesigns that have a positive social impact on our nation’s character and hope. It’s important to help stabilize the national IQ in the face of TikTok and similar uncontrolled dumb-inducing platforms. It wouldn’t surprise me if TikTok was Chinese social warfare tool against North America. I find most conspiracies complete nonsense though this might be a fact in this era of the electronic battlefield that often focuses on minds rather than bodies.
I understand that these are strong words, but it truly is a crisis. Fortunately, there are solutions, but they require remarkable courage from organizations to create powerful new ways of presenting information to a suspicious society. Simply attempting to be unbiased won’t work unless we present information in a dramatic new way that captures the interest and demands a radical rethink of the outdated medium. We need transformation.
Here are some key components that can contribute to this transformation:
- A different format for presenting information: We live in a social media-dominated environment where many people are more accustomed to the look and feel of platforms like TikTok than traditional news outlets. Instead of clinging to outdated styles, we should generate new formats that align with the demands of this century. There are numerous visual instruments available that can tell stories far beyond what anchors or on-the-street reporters can do. We need to create a video orchestra rooted in vision rather than relying on set furniture and moving anchors around.
- Aggressive presentation of both sides: It’s essential to showcase contrasting perspectives in an aggressive manner. For example, we can have someone like a Ted Nugent alongside a strong voiced liberal to debate gun control. The idea is to present all positions and use strong voices, avoiding cluttered screens and people talking over each other.
- Commentators and the public complimenting the anchors and reporters: Rather than relying solely on anchors and reporters, we should involve high-personality, short-form commentators from different positions to tell the story with greater impact and credibility. Additionally, we need to explore new ways of incorporating public opinion beyond the traditional man-on-the-street interviews. It’s time to rethink who presents opinions and how they are presented.
- Geographic news mapping: Opinions often vary by region, so it’s important to illustrate where these regions are and provide geographic context to arguments. This can help put the divide into perspective.
- Headlines from around the world: We live in a global society, and it’s crucial to show what the world is thinking. This includes both the good and the bad, as well as the ugly. We need to broaden our perspective beyond national boundaries.
- Celebrity accountability: The power of celebrities should not go unchecked. It’s important to hold them accountable for their actions and mischief, just as we do with politicians. Their influence needs to be neutralized
- Debunking conspiracy theories: Many conspiracy theories are not based on factual information but rather mass insanity driven by social media. We need to address this issue with a high level of true critical thinking and intelligence.
- Empathy instead of disdain for opposite opinions: Instead of approaching opposing opinions with disdain, we should prioritize empathy. By presenting facts without prejudice and supporting them with powerful graphics, we can strive for a more balanced and unbiased approach.
- Embracing multiculturalism: While progress has been made, the news still lacks diversity, failing to represent the true rainbow of colors that is America. Instead of presenting only a single view , we should aim to showcase diverse characters and hit topics with a range of looks and voices and modern production
- Actions over slogans: It’s almost comical to see news operations trying to sloganize themselves as unbiased or fair. But mere slogans and the tired news presentation style won’t make a difference in a society where people are skeptical. Instead, we need to focus on actions that prove our commitment to truth and integrity. Actions speak louder than words.
There is hope, but we must act now. Unfortunately, many leaders within the information circles appear to lack the boldness, fearlessness, and vision required to drive this change. However, this will change, and the informational future optimistic…hopefully
Pulling away from a 1980’s playbook can be internally challenging but the rewards will create powerful information brands that meet the realities of 2023 and beyond.
About the Author
Decades in the trenches reinventing radio, tv news and print. Passionate about the past but focused on the future. Consultant to over 1,000 radio stations, 12 major print publications, over 20 TV stations and cable networks, several consumer products and the designer of XM Radio programming.
Lee Abrams explores current thinking and visions for brilliant media in the 21st century.
There are a lot of issues the author addresses. I take the perspective of the narratives presented by the mainstream media, 'MSM' and declining audiences on the MSM.
First I will address the declining audiences on the MSM in radio and TV.
Over 40 years, the number of people listening to radio in the Sydney market has declined from 98.5% in the 1970s to 80.4% as recently as survey 5, 2023.
Similarly on TV, twenty years ago, over a million people would watch the 1800 Nine News bulletin with Brian Henderson (RIP) in Sydney. Despite a greater population, Nine News typically has an audience of 360 thousand.
In the US, Walter Cronkite (RIP) had and audience of 60 million in the 1960s and 1970s. Today the combined viewing habits on all three ABC, NBC and CBS is less than 60 million.
It is self-evident that either people are not consuming MSM media OR consuming other sources of media including podcasts and social media.
The latter may include youtube, rumble, X, and facebook. Some organisations may host web pages with podcasts available from the host's site.
So sources of the dissemination of content is diverse.
Is the content diverse? Yes, but it is not from a centralised provider as postulated by the author of the article.
For whatever reasons, people are consuming content whose disseminators may or may not back their story with evidence.
Take for example advocates on social media promoting the medication Ozempic for the treatment of diabetes. The social media promoters have been promoting the medication for its known side effect of weight loss.
This resulted in those with diabetes not being able to access the treatment. A higher price for Ozempic for non-diabetics was not a strong price signal to deter purchase: $7.30 concession price for diabetics versus $132 for non-diabetics.
The problem is that many of these social media presenters/influencers are NOT doctors and have no cudos.
How these influencers have an influence is beyond the scope of this topic.
When it comes to the topic of covid, many anti-covid story tellers range from ranters such as Russell Brand to those who present evidence backed by government data such as Dr John Campbell.
Russell Brand
https://m.youtube.com/user/russellbrand general topics
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf1sKCbOxL0 On why young people are dying
Dr John Campbell
https://m.youtube.com/user/Campbellteaching
Despite the controversy, they manage to remain on youtube and are not taken offline.
Then there is politics and economics. Evidence-based topics presented in a coherent and intelligent way proves that commentators are not the exclusive domain of the MSM.
The Duran is an example
https://m.youtube.com/@TheDuran/videos
Glenn Beck is a conservative speaker who is opininionated. Australian radio is lacking strong "kick ass" opinion maker such as Alan Jones, Jim Ball and Dean Mackin.
In this video, Mr Beck interviews jurist and Harvard academic Emeritus Professor Alan Dershowitz on how the cases against Donald Trump will fail.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_o8aV9iCS2A
Call it a conspiracy theory, but a concern is that the MSM does not present a case for Trump.
From an academic who will not vote for Donald Trump, Alan Dershovitz's concern is that if the cases against Trump succeed, then it sets a precedent against freedom of speech for future candidates seeking office to the POTUS.
The author of this article alludes to the media not presenting strong arguments for and against an issue.
The case for Donald Trump is an an example.
But then will there be enough time to allocate on an MSM channel to broadcast diverse views?
Take for example former 2UE presenter John Cadogan. His main topic is car reviews. In addition he talks about bolts, nuts and other netallurgical issues.
He also presents an argument against EVs not being as friendly to the environment as proferred by by the MSM.
At the same time, Mr Cadogan is NOT a climate denier. He argues that the solutions to addressing excess CO2 are not being met.
https://m.youtube.com/user/AutoExpertTV
He is a prolific content provider attracting an audience of at least 43000 within a few hours of the podcast release.
In sum, MSM audiences are falling, people are sourcing their content feom diverse sources whether that content is backed by evidence.
The content in non-MSM channels may present views which are an alternative to those presented on the MSM.
At the same time, the content may be pure rants or intelligent and coherent comments backed by evidence.
Thank you,
Anthony, Strathfield South, in the land of the Wangal and Darug Peoples of the Eora Nation