I would make it so that news media of any kind, be it TV stations, cable channels, newspaper, magazines..etc, have to operate on a non-profit basis. They cannot be bought or sold by someone with money. If the owner of a newspaper or TV station wants to retire, or otherwise does not wish to continue owing the paper/station, he has to select a successor and then pass on his torch to him/her. And if the owner hasn't got the chance to do that or if he for some reason is unable to find a successor, the government will take over temporarily, run the paper for the time being until such a time comes that a successor can be named. The reason is this: these news outlets are charged with the incredibly important function of keeping the population up-to-date with what's going on in the country and the world at large. People rely on them to make informed choices about not just politics, but literally about everything in the public sphere. And we have been letting these institutions be sellable to the highest bidder, and it hasn't been working out well. People with money to spare are now the gatekeeper of information. They put stuff that they want us to think in their publications, and we gobble it up. If they want a certain candidate to win an election, they promote him and we elect him. They want the country to go to war with a certain country, they put that in and we go to war with that country. They have an editorial section in the newspaper, which really is just about opinions, and has nothing to do with news, and we say, "I don't see why we can't have an editorial page!" and the end result is editors get to shape the public opinions because most people lack the ability to think for themselves and they blindly follow these editors, whose views are approved by the owners and who owe their livelihood to said owners. They also put slant as well as spin in their "news" reporting, and the public follows them unquestioningly. News media being sellable means extremely wealthy people wield even more power that their already impressive riches get them. These uber-rich media moguls staff their teams with people who will say whatever they want, so as to advance said moguls' financial and political agendas further. And if occasionally they get resistance, they will very simply and easily replace him/her with someone more obedient. There is no transparency, there is no real, objective news reporting. It's just endless mass manipulation and the shaping of public opinion disguised as news.
I would also make certain that these outlets conform to certain rules to ensure the quality of their news reporting. The first one: on TV, there cannot be any music accompanying news. The reason is because they can play ominous-sounding, "evil" music so that people will associate someone or something with being evil. Manipulation of this kind will be made illegal. The reporting of news and consumption of news should be very sober processes. Newspaper also will be forbidden by law from putting spins on things. This is otherwise known as spin-doctoring. Again, the reason is that the public is easily fooled, they cannot tell when a spin is being worked into the story, and they get influenced in a way they otherwise wouldn't have. I consider this to be a highly unethical act, so it must be banned. Also, newspapers will no longer be allowed to have an editorial section. They also cannot have a section where they show reader feedback that they receive. I say the former because a newspaper is for the dissemination of news. It's not about the opinion of a few editors. If they want to display some dude's opinion, then the "newspaper" is no longer newspaper, it needs to be called opinionpaper. In fact, I would ban the expression of opinion altogether in all newspapers. If we cannot give equal representation to all points of view, then we shouldn't be listing any at all, because that would be the unfair promotion of certain views but not others. And I want to ban newspaper from having a reader feedback section because they can selectively show certain feedback while deliberately withholding other feedback. Again, they do this to shape public opinion. They create the illusion that the public consensus is such a way, and the public being the intellectually unsophisticated fools that they are, lap it up. This is incredibly bad and dangerous for a free democracy. It needs to be banned. I will also be playing watchdog to inconsistent reporting. For example, in reports of crimes, if the perpetrator is a minority, and the newspaper or TV neglects to mention this, but in another crime where the perpetrator is white and they make his race front and center, I consider this to be done deliberately and the agency in question will not simply be fined, it will be forcibly confiscated by the government and the government will assign a new owner to it, someone who pledges that he will not engage in such a dishonest, unethical behavior. The message I want to send to these news media: I expect you to be honorable, ethical, consistent, and honest in your reporting. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be owing a paper/a TV station. And the above are just the few instances I can think of at the moment, trust me there are many, many more cases where they engage in unethical, deliberately misleading manners. As I encounter these, they will all be punished. Extremely harshly. There needs to be standards in the news media industry. There needs to be an agency that oversees them, regulates them, and punishes them whenever appropriate. It shouldn't be this big open free-for-all where the person with the most money can buy things up and do what he likes with them.
This post was edited by JessiWan on Mar 3 2022 05:33pm