- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
This is something I wrote a few years ago but felt worth sharing. I think December of 2020?
The basic function of a modern-day democracy has three components: the people, the politicians, and the media - and each are inseparable from each other but cannot be removed.
The people are the soul of the nation, the ones who generate materials and wealth as part of their daily lives. They are the store owners, the farmers, the workers, the landowners, and so on. They are the ones who work to keep society running, just as an aspect of their daily lives. But they need rules and a structure to interact with each other, standards of agreement with their neighbours of who owns what and how to fund and support shared services such as hospitals and fire departments. That task is too unwieldy in larger nations for every single member to constantly spend part of their lives contributing to drafting and enforcing these agreements and structures, so they appoint politicians.
The politicians listen to the people they represent and are trained with understanding the rules and laws of the system, ensuring that things are running smoothly and to the benefit of all represented people as best as possible. that is often a complex task, ones they take years learning how to do and requires them to take countless hours listening to the people they represent to understand their needs and demands. But often issues can be exceedingly complicated to understand, and politicians may choose their power to support special groups - or solely themselves. The people have their daily lives to follow and do not always spend the time monitoring everything the politicians do to ensure they are appointing the politicians that best represent their needs, or they don't fully understand that the politicians they chose are doing the best they can to meet their needs regarding circumstances, and so the media steps in for that role.
The media takes the role of talking to everyone to get a better understanding of what is going on: what the people need and want, what the politicians are doing to meet those expectations, and how successful the politician’s actions are, and how the people are affected by that. They then take the time to consolidate everything they know and learn and publish official reports of what is happening so that both the people and the politicians are informed enough to make good decisions. Their role is to make simplified statements of what is going on so that every person can take a small portion of their day to listen and be informed, without being a washed with contradicting and false information. They do this in the expectation that the people gain a good enough understanding of the politicians so that they can appoint the ones that represent them best, and so they understand the limits of reality if other constraints mean their needs are difficult to meet. The media also takes the role of informing the politicians of what the people needs and demands are, so they can make better choices instead of just being replaced by other politicians that will make those choices.
In theory this is a simple system. The media informs the public and the politicians, the people choose their politicians, and the politicians enact the will of the people. A simple system, but with a rather critical flaw if left unchecked. There are three problems: the media can choose to only tell the people what they want to hear, the politicians may not have the people's best interests at heart, and the people may choose to hold strong opinions on things they do not fully understand.
Historically there were only a few sources of media, who hired trained journalists who would take the time to travel to the places they talk about and see for themselves what is happening. They would have editors that check and ensure the information is correct and as truthful as possible, and they would publish information that is easier for people to understand but makes them informed enough to know who to vote for. These media sources would be considered high class and trusted and can often charge a premium for access to their information because people believe it to be accurate. The modern world is not like that.
Virtually anyone can create a news corporation or simply write articles on their own and pass them off as truth. There becomes a high pressure to release breaking news stories as fast as possible - before the story is fully understood. Not only that, but because there are so many news sources to choose from people can pick and choose who to listen to - even if the source is untrusted and can be enraptured by fascinating stories that do not accurately portray events. Because media sources often rely on the interest of their readers for income, they are both forced to take less time to understand and verify a story AND they are often forced to "spin" their story to make it more interesting - often omitting dull and unpopular details and highlighting interesting but highly suspect details.
Over time the selective pressures can cause published information to become more and more one-sided as they target social groups that are receptive to that interpretation of events, to the point that the people that read those reports get a seriously distorted understanding of the reality of what is happening - often to the point that that are completely averse to news sources that have conflicting information, even if that information is more objective and accurate. That adds increasing pressure onto the respective new sources, as they can no longer publish objective information - no matter how importantly vital - if it conflicts with the established narrative that the people believe.
That brings us to the politicians. Because the intent is for the politicians to be appointed by people, the politicians that get chosen are chosen because they represent the narrative the people believe - in disregard to what the people want and need. They can sometimes take advantage of this to make decisions that promote their self-interests, or deliberately make decisions that perfectly fit that narrative to gain additional support for future elections. Those decisions do not necessarily have to benefit the people, and they can be insulated from the consequences of poor decisions if those consequences do not fit the narrative. The consequences can be ignored or suppressed by both the media and the people or covered up by information that conflicts and dismisses them. Over time this can lead to politicians become more and more out of touch of what the actual needs and wants of the people are – especially if the consequences can be reinterpreted in a new way that reflects the narrative.
The narrative, over time, can become increasingly self-referencing in ways that nobody recognizes at first. The media can be reinforcing the narrative not because it is popular and what the people want to listen to, but because the media itself believes the narrative to be fact – and interprets everything they see and hear based on that narrative. They are not choosing to reject accurate information because they want to but because they have spent so long being told that information was a lie that they genuinely can no longer recognize it as fact. The narrative can increasingly gain strength to the point that people get so averse to conflicting information that they genuinely fear and refuse to accept it at an instinctive level. That can lead to people becoming actively hostile to anyone that does not believe that narrative - or tries to explain objective information that happens to conflict with the narrative.
Not only can the people become hostile to anything counter to the narrative, but everyone involved with anything connected to the narrative can be forced to conform to it. People trying to raise awareness to objective information can be branded as an enemy and harassed or threatened into silence, people that witness indisputable proof conflicting the narrative will outright dismiss it, and people can take actions to enforce the narrative – in complete disregard to the consequences of doing so. If the narrative gets strong enough then fighting it or contradicting it can become almost impossible – with the end game being that the system that supports the narrative, collapses under the consequences of said narrative.
And that scares me.
The basic function of a modern-day democracy has three components: the people, the politicians, and the media - and each are inseparable from each other but cannot be removed.
The people are the soul of the nation, the ones who generate materials and wealth as part of their daily lives. They are the store owners, the farmers, the workers, the landowners, and so on. They are the ones who work to keep society running, just as an aspect of their daily lives. But they need rules and a structure to interact with each other, standards of agreement with their neighbours of who owns what and how to fund and support shared services such as hospitals and fire departments. That task is too unwieldy in larger nations for every single member to constantly spend part of their lives contributing to drafting and enforcing these agreements and structures, so they appoint politicians.
The politicians listen to the people they represent and are trained with understanding the rules and laws of the system, ensuring that things are running smoothly and to the benefit of all represented people as best as possible. that is often a complex task, ones they take years learning how to do and requires them to take countless hours listening to the people they represent to understand their needs and demands. But often issues can be exceedingly complicated to understand, and politicians may choose their power to support special groups - or solely themselves. The people have their daily lives to follow and do not always spend the time monitoring everything the politicians do to ensure they are appointing the politicians that best represent their needs, or they don't fully understand that the politicians they chose are doing the best they can to meet their needs regarding circumstances, and so the media steps in for that role.
The media takes the role of talking to everyone to get a better understanding of what is going on: what the people need and want, what the politicians are doing to meet those expectations, and how successful the politician’s actions are, and how the people are affected by that. They then take the time to consolidate everything they know and learn and publish official reports of what is happening so that both the people and the politicians are informed enough to make good decisions. Their role is to make simplified statements of what is going on so that every person can take a small portion of their day to listen and be informed, without being a washed with contradicting and false information. They do this in the expectation that the people gain a good enough understanding of the politicians so that they can appoint the ones that represent them best, and so they understand the limits of reality if other constraints mean their needs are difficult to meet. The media also takes the role of informing the politicians of what the people needs and demands are, so they can make better choices instead of just being replaced by other politicians that will make those choices.
In theory this is a simple system. The media informs the public and the politicians, the people choose their politicians, and the politicians enact the will of the people. A simple system, but with a rather critical flaw if left unchecked. There are three problems: the media can choose to only tell the people what they want to hear, the politicians may not have the people's best interests at heart, and the people may choose to hold strong opinions on things they do not fully understand.
Historically there were only a few sources of media, who hired trained journalists who would take the time to travel to the places they talk about and see for themselves what is happening. They would have editors that check and ensure the information is correct and as truthful as possible, and they would publish information that is easier for people to understand but makes them informed enough to know who to vote for. These media sources would be considered high class and trusted and can often charge a premium for access to their information because people believe it to be accurate. The modern world is not like that.
Virtually anyone can create a news corporation or simply write articles on their own and pass them off as truth. There becomes a high pressure to release breaking news stories as fast as possible - before the story is fully understood. Not only that, but because there are so many news sources to choose from people can pick and choose who to listen to - even if the source is untrusted and can be enraptured by fascinating stories that do not accurately portray events. Because media sources often rely on the interest of their readers for income, they are both forced to take less time to understand and verify a story AND they are often forced to "spin" their story to make it more interesting - often omitting dull and unpopular details and highlighting interesting but highly suspect details.
Over time the selective pressures can cause published information to become more and more one-sided as they target social groups that are receptive to that interpretation of events, to the point that the people that read those reports get a seriously distorted understanding of the reality of what is happening - often to the point that that are completely averse to news sources that have conflicting information, even if that information is more objective and accurate. That adds increasing pressure onto the respective new sources, as they can no longer publish objective information - no matter how importantly vital - if it conflicts with the established narrative that the people believe.
That brings us to the politicians. Because the intent is for the politicians to be appointed by people, the politicians that get chosen are chosen because they represent the narrative the people believe - in disregard to what the people want and need. They can sometimes take advantage of this to make decisions that promote their self-interests, or deliberately make decisions that perfectly fit that narrative to gain additional support for future elections. Those decisions do not necessarily have to benefit the people, and they can be insulated from the consequences of poor decisions if those consequences do not fit the narrative. The consequences can be ignored or suppressed by both the media and the people or covered up by information that conflicts and dismisses them. Over time this can lead to politicians become more and more out of touch of what the actual needs and wants of the people are – especially if the consequences can be reinterpreted in a new way that reflects the narrative.
The narrative, over time, can become increasingly self-referencing in ways that nobody recognizes at first. The media can be reinforcing the narrative not because it is popular and what the people want to listen to, but because the media itself believes the narrative to be fact – and interprets everything they see and hear based on that narrative. They are not choosing to reject accurate information because they want to but because they have spent so long being told that information was a lie that they genuinely can no longer recognize it as fact. The narrative can increasingly gain strength to the point that people get so averse to conflicting information that they genuinely fear and refuse to accept it at an instinctive level. That can lead to people becoming actively hostile to anyone that does not believe that narrative - or tries to explain objective information that happens to conflict with the narrative.
Not only can the people become hostile to anything counter to the narrative, but everyone involved with anything connected to the narrative can be forced to conform to it. People trying to raise awareness to objective information can be branded as an enemy and harassed or threatened into silence, people that witness indisputable proof conflicting the narrative will outright dismiss it, and people can take actions to enforce the narrative – in complete disregard to the consequences of doing so. If the narrative gets strong enough then fighting it or contradicting it can become almost impossible – with the end game being that the system that supports the narrative, collapses under the consequences of said narrative.
And that scares me.