Kite News

Thankfully, you can look up archive footage and print media to confirm this. Or talk to people who lived it.

> There's tons of Vietnam war era journalism that was terribly bad.

I didn't say all of it was good. I said that that the line between fact and opinion was clearer. I'm not that old, but I remember when newspapers had an editorial section. This was a single-page essay about popular topics written by senior editors that was clearly labeled as an opinion piece. This meant that the rest of the paper was not an opinion, and contained purely facts.

After media companies became for-profit organizations, the editorial didn't make sense, since they could fill the entire edition with opinions. And, wouldn't you know it, if they reported more of a certain type of event and gave it a specific spin, they would get more eyeballs, and more profit from advertisers. Outrage media and spin doctors were born.

> Depends on your point of view. From government point of view it's terrible. If it's journalists being held accountable for their lies and agendas, way worse.

You have a twisted perspective that governments, and somehow by association journalists, are the only ones with an agenda, and can't be trusted.

While that might be the case, what makes you trust a random social media influencer more? Influencers are even more susceptible to being corrupted by whoever's sponsoring them. At least with propaganda from governments and traditional media you know what their agendas are. I know what to expect from Fox News and CNN. It's practically impossible to know the type of agenda of a million different voices all shouting into the void.

> That's how freedom of the press works correct. If you dont have moral and integrity, good luck getting an audience.

Wow. Are you new to the internet? That statement is blatantly false if you check any social media site.

> The government regulating the news is literally the opposite of freedom of the press.

I'm not advocating for the government to regulate the news. What I'm advocating for is for establishing certain standards that media outlets must adhere to in order to operate. This could ideally be done via an international body with independent oversight, and not just by a single government. The financial incentive must also be removed, and news outlets should operate as non-profit public services rather than corporations.

If done correctly, this could ensure transparency and integrity in news reporting, and bring ethics back into journalism.

> So the government will revoke freedom of the press and license journalists? Just dont do that in my country, thanks.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean that everyone should have an equal voice in reporting facts about the world. You really think that a social media influencer can be relied on to report facts more than a news agency with actual journalists? That's delusional.

The reason licenses for journalists are a good idea is the same reason why we require one for doctors, civil engineers, and other professions where human lives are at stake. Information is one of the most important factors in the wellbeing of a modern society. By ensuring that only individuals who study the craft and pledge to abide to certain ethical and integrity standards can practice journalism, we could establish trustworthy news sources, and regain public trust in news agencies. This would make whatever nonsense is spewed on social media irrelevant.

> You want the government to license journalists. You want to make the government the arbiter of truth.

You are intentionally misinterpreting what I say, so I'll refrain from replying again. What I said was that if only facts are reported there wouldn't need to be an arbitrer of truth, because the facts could be easily verified. If multiple independent and trustworthy sources report the same story with the same facts, then it must be true. The government nor anyone else couldn't have a say in the matter.

It's not a conspiracy or anything like you're describing, it's that moderate politics is often just... wrong. Believe it or not, there's sometimes a right answer, and a wrong answer. And if you go "in the middle" you end up being wrong.

I mean, take a small gander a history. There's usually a right answer... and a wrong one. Typically, in the moment, the people don't know that. So some construct middle-ground that they believe seems reasonable. Then, we look back on it, and say "what the fuck were you thinking". And that's how we end up with bullshit like the 3/5ths compromise. Seriously, what the fuck was that?

Point being, simply being moderate or depolarized doesn't save you. Consider that, in some countries right now, moderate positions are pro-genocide. Because that's how far gone the politics in said country are.