Main Edition
US
FR
November 25, 2024 - 7:00am
The UK is moving towards a fractured, two-tier news media environment, according to a new report from the House of Lords.
Mainstream news is in decline, particularly local journalism, the report suggests, amid economic pressures and low public trust. While many will continue to be well served by both traditional and new media, others are turning to “dubious online sources” or have stopped following the news entirely, it warns, forming a “two-tier media environment”. The information environment could become fractured along social, regional and economic lines within five to 10 years, ending a period of widely agreed upon facts, the implications of which would be “grim”.
Further, the growing role of AI news summaries, and the consolidation of tech firms controlling AI models, will change the way people consume news and give enormous power to these firms for framing important political questions.
However, the report’s recommendations warn against such interventions as government-endorsed labels for quality news sources, and call for a more “proportionate” response to misinformation to avoid “undermin[ing] free speech”. Instead, the state should offer tax breaks for local journalism, particularly coverage focusing on democracy, and ramp up “media literacy programmes”. The report also requests increased protections for journalists, including from international threats.
The statement comes after reporting from UnHerd revealed that ratings agencies, with funding from American, British and European governments, were blacklisting disfavoured media outlets in the name of stifling misinformation. These agencies assigned “brand safety” scores and discouraged advertisers from partnering with low-scoring outlets in order to starve them of revenue. UnHerd, for example, was blacklisted for publishing the work of gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock.
In the lead-up to the report, UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers told the House of Lords that the “disinformation movement” had “exacerbated losses in public trust and fast-forwarded the collapse in trust in the media and in government”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI don’t want the state involved in deciding what is and isn’t disinformation – period. I’m not on Twitter, but apparently they have a system for flagging misinformation that is organic and crowd sourced.
What this ‘disinformation’ panic misses is that the wider the sources of information one draws upon the more likely one is to arrive at a reasonably accurate view. Plus the more exposure people have to misinformation the more discerning they will become.
Let’s not forget that, had there been social media in the 2000s, it would likely have been impossible for the left wing establishment to conceal the activities of the grooming gangs for so long. Without social media the BBC’s mis-reporting about – amongst so many other things – Trump’s supposed relationship with Putin and the fictional ‘insurrection’ of January 2021 as well as the motivation behind so many terrorist atrocities would never have been exposed. As late as January this year the Today programme was still telling its listeners that five people died in the Capitol ‘riot’.
Diversity of media is a good thing. Don’t let the control freaks destroy it.
deleted
There’s very little that can be done about the spread of alternative news, whether it’s accurate or not. The truth is I suspect people don’t mind being lied to as long as they’re being entertained. Mainstream news is drudgery and the cold reality of war and decline, whereas alternative and fake news is a torrent of LOLs and dopamine hits. It’s obvious which way the swarm will go.
I think you’re right. What do facts matter when one already has a position and opinion? The facts I know of are no use to me when talking with others who are arguing with obviously faulty information. Nor do I see things going in the direction I prefer just because I’m aware of objective, factual accounts. It comforts me to know the facts of things, which you would imagine any intelligent person would want, but it gives me no hope anymore. At times even the news services I support will play with words to give a story the angle they want. But it’s possible that in the end we’re all looking for facts to back up our feeling about things.
I have re-read your post and I keep stopping at “which you would imagine any intelligent person would want”. I agree with you that I want the facts and I think that those on UhHerd would agree with you, but…I see intelligent people who are interested only in themselves and close family. I have a reputation in family circles for knowing just a little too much for comfort in a social environment.
Unfortunately, most people I know are not interested in many things unless it affects them personally at that moment. We have one exception and she is so vociferous on line that she has had a couple of visits from our Thought Police – talking about these non-crime hate incidents.
I don’t quite know what do with the word “intelligent”. Obviously disagreeing with me doesn’t make people unintelligent. But in my experience the people who disagree with me throw patently incorrect things at me that are clearly incorrect, or if I check it out later I find it’s also correct. They either know they’re trying to mislead me or they’re happy to mislead themselves. These people I would call intelligent based on something we have between ourselves. But if they’re lying to me, or themselves, then how can I call them intelligent. Intelligent people can be wrong, but to me a mark of intelligence is a desire for truth.
I think most won’t mind being lied to as long as the lies match their preconceived opinions