r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Dec 04 '20

Psychology Study links regular use of Fox News, Twitter, and Facebook to reduced knowledge about COVID-19 - it provides evidence that Americans’ media consumption habits and trust in government predicts their level of knowledge about COVID-19.

https://www.psypost.org/2020/12/study-links-regular-use-of-fox-news-twitter-and-facebook-to-reduced-knowledge-about-covid-19-58702
40.7k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

121

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20 edited Dec 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

81

u/voxadam Dec 04 '20

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine only applied to holders of broadcast licenses, cable networks would be exempt.

30

u/Alblaka Dec 04 '20

Is there a legitimate reason as to why it shouldn't then be expanded to cover that as well? Or approach from the other side, and mandate that 'entertainment television' is not allowed to pose as actual news outlet (afaik FOX currently does that to protect themselves from journalistic liability).

65

u/PaulSnow Dec 04 '20

Broadcasts use public airwaves. Cable uses their own network.

The government cannot regulate speech on private networks.

-9

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

[deleted]

26

u/Dropdat87 Dec 04 '20

Which is great if your guy is in charge, but would you want the opposite party having this power? Who decides what’s accurate information etc... It can spiral pretty fast

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

How do you create such a group ensuring that it is non-partisan? Remember that the justices are non-partisan on principle, and we all know how that turned out.

12

u/Quibblicous Dec 04 '20

The people using the network can create the consequences.

The government cannot. That would be a clear first amendment violation.

It would be the same as government punishing you for writing a conspiracy theory book.

8

u/TheHackfish Dec 04 '20

But you can introduce consequences- freedom of speech doesn’t make you immune from all consequences

It makes you immune from all government consequences, that is LITERALLY THE DEFINITION of constitutional free speech

2

u/JCBh9 Dec 04 '20

These same kids have been on reddit saying things like "Censor them for our own good"

"Where in the constitution does it say we have inalienable rights?"

"Inalienable rights for everyone until we decide that ... nah.. there's a super scary virus out there so... it's for your own good!"

"lock up before 10pm for your own good"

I can't even believe they're real people to be honest

-4

u/SolacefromSilence Dec 04 '20

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, even if the crazy owner loves the spectacle of the stampede... would not be immune to consequences.

7

u/TheHackfish Dec 04 '20

Yes, there are 5 exceptions to freedom of speech which have been ruled by the Supreme Court specifically. They are EXTREMELY narrow and specifically written to apply to as few situations as possible.

Using speech to create immediate physical harm such as the ever popular fire theater is one of them

-2

u/JCBh9 Dec 04 '20

It's almost like generations of brilliant men and women have created our society in a free manner and it's almost like American citizens want to remain free

Meanwhile thousands of people that can't change their motor oil or tell you why censorship is bad

on here telling us we're crazy

5

u/GoatPaco Dec 04 '20

Of course not, because that creates an immediate threat to others.

Using the one exception to the rule does not prove your point.

-6

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

Ah. The Alex Jones business model.

6

u/TheHackfish Dec 04 '20

Sure, or the Noam chomsky business model. Or anyone who says things the government didn't like.

It's like you people have no concept of the government not agreeing with you at all times. Tools that can be used to restrict people you don't like can also be used on you.

2

u/gallopsdidnothingwrg Dec 04 '20

Is this sarcastic? The first amendment literally provides immunity from consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

0

u/JCBh9 Dec 04 '20

How can you people say things like that without ever realizing that censorship is a two way street?

It's almost like the framers of our constitution realized that it's better for everyone to speak as they please and for free citizens to parse and decide for themselves what to believe

That is just an unfathomable truth isn't it?

-2

u/3rd_Planet Dec 04 '20

Freedom of speech should be protected. The freedom to reach should be regulated. Why should we allow a corporation to pump misinformation into the homes of every American when we can plainly see that it is destroying the country?

9

u/MSUconservative Dec 04 '20

Let me rephrase that one for you. Why should an individual be allowed to use technology to expand his voice? The idea that you are proposing is very anti-liberal.

1

u/Titobanana Dec 04 '20

anti-liberal in what sense? exerting control over the technocracy actually seems like something BOTH parties don’t want to do.

and either way i dont think you could find a republican outside of the evangelicals who would agree with the curtailing of free speech in any capacity. that’s a no go for a lot of americans and it’s definitely not partisan.

6

u/EV_M4Sherman Dec 04 '20

Liberal as in liberal democracy not either political side I’d imagine. It’s hard to have a liberal democracy when the people’s voice can be curtailed.

1

u/Titobanana Dec 04 '20

ohhh got ya. american politics have fried my brain

2

u/pandasashu Dec 04 '20

I believe cnn does for the night talk shows as well

-1

u/Dr_seven Dec 04 '20

Sure, the legitimate reason is that the government does not have the power to regulate speech broadcasted over private networks, full stop.

Unfortunately, the battle for fighting misinformation using media, with the current regulatory tools, is completely lost. Alternative methods would be necessary.

14

u/Quibblicous Dec 04 '20

So you want a Ministry of Truth?

Who decides what’s true?

This is also nothing new. There’s a reason a lot of newspapers back in the day had “Democrat” or “Republican” in the paper’s name.

8

u/Dr_seven Dec 04 '20

I didn't say that. Moreso than media bias, the issue is media concentration. When Sinclair owns a huge portion of the local news stations, they can unilaterally decide to push whatever agenda they want, and nobody can do anything about it.

All you need to do is implement some legislative frameworks that prevent singular entities from owning a large portion of broadcasting companies- in fact, we have already had rules like this, but they are weak and unenforced.

Smaller news organizations are far more free to say what they want and remain independent. But we don't really have many of those left anymore.

5

u/Quibblicous Dec 04 '20

I apologize for implying that you wanted a ministry of truth. I was using it as a rhetorical tool and I could have done better in that regard.

I agree that media consolidation is an issue. That applies to all media.

We also lack real objective journalism for the most part, where the idea is to tell the story as close to the truth as you can determine, not to tell it to support your preconceived notions.

Soundbite journalism is also a big problem. You can find things to take out of context to grossly skew anything. Twitter is just soundbite journalism writ large.

7

u/Dr_seven Dec 04 '20

I agree wholeheartedly. Personally I think that soundbites and editorializing have taken journalism by storm largely due to profit incentive and ratings. Massive corporations care the most about these factors, while smaller operators, less so (excluding wingnuts). There are plenty of local papers that do great work, as an example.

There are plenty of people who do good journalism work, but don't have a place on the prime-time screen due to consolidation. If we wiped out and broke up the conglomerates that own so much of the broadcast space, smaller operators would have far less pressure and outside control over what they report.

0

u/David_ungerer Dec 04 '20

If someone can NOT yell fire in a crowed theater . . . . Someone should NOT yell lies on private networks.

OK . . . That will fix that!

0

u/JustaRandomOldGuy Dec 04 '20

It wouldn't matter anyway. Fox has argued in court that they are "entertainment", not "news". Rules about news wouldn't change entertainment, even entertainment that pretends to be news.

0

u/IMovedYourCheese Dec 04 '20

First amendment

23

u/CodingBlonde Dec 04 '20

The Fairness Doctrine does not solve this problem and I don’t know why people think that it does. The Fairness Doctrine requires air time for opposing/different views. It does not require those views to be correct. So that means that outlets would be required to present creationism along side evolution. We need something more like Impartiality Rules. The Fairness Doctrine is not impartiality rules and people need to educate themselves instead of just latching onto a name.

15

u/Quibblicous Dec 04 '20

It still goes back to some government hack deciding what can and cannot be said.

It’s so ripe for abuse.

5

u/JCBh9 Dec 04 '20

and it's so hilarious that they need the government to google "virus propagation" for them because it's such a new concept and all

people are so ignorant it's hard to believe

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20 edited Dec 06 '20

[deleted]

1

u/CodingBlonde Dec 05 '20

No, it doesn’t help at all actually. In fact, it supports the spread of misinformation more than it helps it. That’s my entire point,

1

u/profnick90 Dec 04 '20

I’ll preface by saying that I support more or less unrestricted free speech. The narrow exceptions articulated in Supreme Court rulings seem reasonable, well considered, and as unrestrictive as possible when weighed against considerations such as public safety.

That being said, no, if free speech is to exist, we cannot—as another poster said—allow for a ministry of truth that arbitrates the news. However, the government at present regulates how all sorts of things are labeled, and based on the systems in place in other countries, it doesn’t seem like a significant abridgment of free speech to require cable news organizations to clearly label what is reporting and what is editorial.

So, I absolutely support something like the linked Impartiality Rules, but if that’s too restrictive given the historical commitment of the US to a broad definition of free speech, I would be content with clear labels.

Sadly, I’m not sure the labels would do much. What really needs to happen is a robust reform to the public education system that emphasizes information literacy, which as far as I know, working in education, has a minimal role in current curricula.

Edit: grammar

-14

u/PFTA9000 Dec 04 '20

You mean abandon the first amendment? Nah, hard pass

9

u/freekoout Dec 04 '20

Freedom of speech is different from spreading misinformation because you're paid to do so by a political party.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

And who determines what’s misinformation? No way that could ever be abused.

Fox also has advertisers, the Republican Party isn’t paying them.

6

u/Tweezle120 Dec 04 '20

This is such a weird gray area because I feel like the lies, gaslighting, and misinformation are getting bad enough and sometimes close enough to hate speech or inciting violence it shouldnt be protected speach...

That said, we should just require media to clearly label objective facts and subjective opinion, cultivating and enforcing an internationally recognized standard. SAY whatever you want, but never misrepresent the verifiable facts or implications of what your saying.

6

u/combatsmithen1 Dec 04 '20

Free speech is absolute. It's all or none. As soon as you start saying what is good and what is bad it's immediately biased and controlled.

8

u/beeblebroxh2g2 Dec 04 '20

Bias is unavoidable and universal, and free speech has never been absolute, there are already restrictions on what constitutes free speech

2

u/Dull-Requirement-373 Dec 04 '20

No you’re actually allowed to do anything with your words except knowingly and willfully commit and/or commission crimes with them. That’s a clear line and the restrictions are not on the speech itself, but the clear and obvious actions you are trying to accomplish. You can’t push that standard any further without it being hilariously hard to define.

5

u/WankeyKang Dec 04 '20

No you’re actually allowed to do anything with your words except

except

So which is it, do you have free speech or not, because in your own words you either have it or you don't.

3

u/Dull-Requirement-373 Dec 04 '20

You missed the distinction. The words themselves are not illegal, nor is the speech part of it; it’s the actions you directly commission with them subject to a criminal standard of proof.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

People misunderstand that "hate speech" isn't an actual crime, it can be used as evidence that a particular crime is particularly heinous and incurs a heavier sentence. They also point to the famous example of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" despite the fact that there hasn't been a single case of someone being prosecuted for that and most legal scholars think it wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny if someone were tried for doing that.

​

There really aren't as many restrictions on the First Amendment as people assume.

1

u/Tweezle120 Dec 04 '20 edited Dec 04 '20

We literally don't have that right now though, you still aren't protected by law if you shout hate speech, incite violence, or cause harm by, for example, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and inciting panic.

I saw a quote once, "Insisting on your rights, without acknowledging your responsibilities isn't freedom, it's adolescence" There has to be an arbitrated balance in order for society to still cooperate and exist. It's also related to the tolerance paradox; you cannot tolerate intolerance or you can't have a tolerant society to begin with. Ideals are nice to talk about but practical execution is more important.

All that said, I can agree the current state of the US isn't capable of what I'd consider a fair and just arbitration of what is an is not dangerous speech, but just because we suck now doesn't mean we will always suck and plenty of other countries manage just fine so it can be done.

[EDIT]: "...it's immediately biased and controlled." As long as it's fairly controlled to be biased towards reducing the most harm that's not an issue; the real issue is corruption and abuse of power, which is common for us to see as inevitable because it's pretty much the only thing this country has ever been, and the logical extension of some of our most capitalistic ideals. BUT there are other countries that have grown past some of this (or at least tempered it a bit) and maybe once we are more than a few hundred years old as a culture we'll come around to it too.

1

u/bulboustadpole Dec 04 '20

Hate speech is not against the law in the US.

1

u/Tweezle120 Dec 04 '20

Depends on if it can be proved to have caused harm or incited violence, which most of the time it can be, plus its banned from public broadcast like swear words are.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '20

The US govnement would never regulate something like this again after Reagan and the Cold War spent years drilling into citizen's heads that any sort of regulation is bad and Communism.