@Demon:

Meanwhile, even researching this, I can't find ONE "Men's Rights Activist" who hasn't spent a good deal of time attacking feminists, feminism, or women as a whole.

@xan:

That might be difficult to manage. If each media house is funded equally they might not really have the urge to outperform the other and there won't be any drive to extensively go about with their news if there are no added benefits. If they do get additional revenue after being compared with other stations, the funding could be given based on a criteria over which the decision needs to be taken. The criteria can be made by the people but people tend to end up making stupid decisions when it comes to a community (brexit, trump) so perhaps a locally elected body to govern it? That in turn creates a hierarchy with possible bias too as the money involved grows. It ultimately comes down to morally incorruptible and not very greedy personalities but people like that don't exist for long. It's probably way more complicated than that ofc but just making some assumption. Media involved in huge countries like the US require quite a lot of money and local funding wouldn't really be of much help IMO

Easy to mitigate - give it a board of representatives. Combine 10 States or 5 States into a group and that group select their board members to form 5 or 10 board members. Money isn't from the Government it's from the people via Taxes and constitutionally protected and tied to population not to performance.

But I do agree - for something like that to be built would take a lot of organization and for the current politicians to go against their personal interests and even once created it would be under constant attack and attempts at manipulation.

@wolfwood:

Sweden has that, and it still struggles with the problems of biases and underrepresentation.

Removing slush funds might be a start, but it's not a cure-all.

Definitely not but I also think that Journalism studies have been watered down a lot with people favouring click-bait and likes/upvotes over substance. It's an easy trap to fall into - everyone wants to be popular and that in itself becomes another point a person can be manipulated. Say what I want you to say or I'll downvote you or I'll like the person who talks over you - thanks to seeds planted over the years where debates are now shouting matches and the moderators put popularity over impartiality in controlling the debate.

If someone can't say what they think in the marketplace of ideas - it doesn't stop them thinking it - it doesn't stop them from basing their decisions upon it - having unpopular ideas unable to be challenged in a meaningful way is what leads people to become disenfranchised. Where I live Voting is mandatory - we have preferential voting so your vote matters more since Winner take all doesn't make people earn your vote - but we also succumbed to people in the media yelling over the top of people speaking calmly and convincingly in the hopes that if they drown out the message it wont be heard. It is being heard and people don't like those who try to stop them from listening, and that is killing progression more than anything.

There are some old guard Journalists out there who current ones should run and seek out and sit at their feet and learn from - learn that sometimes you have to show traumatic things and talk about confronting issues without your personal bias because the information you have is for the population to decide how they'll perceive it not how you want them to.

@xan:

I have always been interested in how the world continuously underestimates and fails to reform the media's hold over people.

Here in Australia we have the ABC - where it's cost is covered by taxes but it runs independently of the Government - both sides of Government hate it with extreme prejudice because it will investigate and post stories whether people watch it or not. Although our latest government has been undermining it by cutting it's budget since it can't influence it directly. And Rupert Murdoch has been trying to latch his claws into it for decades.

I personally think all countries should have tax funded media constitutionally protected and paid for by the people to represent them - meaning zero advertising revenue to it and no politician can refuse an interview request from it more than 3 times otherwise they are removed from their position. Money corrupts media - when it comes directly from the people a set amount based on the population - then journalists are free to go after everything.

@maxterdexter:

Can we take a critical look at democracy, where populist and demagogues can successfully game the system?

There have been people trying for years to get money out of politics.

Also CGP-Grey made a brilliant video on the subject - I recommend watching it all.

@RazgrizX:

But is this really a big issue?

Clearly or the Voting would have been completely different. I saw something like at least 60% or higher of white women voted for Trump on several social media feeds - no official source yet though. There is a lot of anger in USA and instead of trying to calm it people have been stoking it on all sides.

@RoboBlue:

As much as it pains me to say it… no. I think the damage was already done, and many of Hillary's supporters who worked so hard to alienate moderates would have been doing the same thing for Bernie.

Hate to say it but it's been happening world wide for a couple of years now with the left alienating moderates - never more so online people fell into echo-chambers that were very loud and they didn't hear what some people were trying to say or tell them - this is not a swipe at anyones core belief systems it's pure observation. Here in Australia we have seen people voting for people who 10 years ago would have been shunned because they're the only people listening and appealing to moderates.

But a couple of years back you had an exodus(not sure if massive or not) from these forums over similar issues where people were yelled at for being on a side and told they were not welcome here and mocked so they left. It's happened on social media platforms the world over that people became insular and stopped allowing someone to disagree and those who disagreed fought harder back than they should have and everything went nuclear.

Until we can find a way to disagree online without both giving and taking offence things like this are going to repeat.

@Kaiolino:

Hillary Clinton is the definition of a moderate lol.

And Brexit, and Trump, happened because of racist (and sexist in the latter) backlash. When the Leavers said Brexit would be economically viable they were losing, when they said it would put a halt to immigration they won. And for weeks after there were racist incidents.

I'm not denying that at all - And I am positive over there in the States you'll have people become even more bold with their racist attitudes in public thinking they have the support of the majority. And you'll have a bunch of moderates unhappy with them and being associated with them. That's going to be the best time to reach out to moderates and get them on your side - that's the time to look at the bigger picture and say "What are we willing to sacrifice to reach this".

Trump won - he played the game and he won - the important question you have to ask is do you want to contribute to him having a 2nd term by alienating moderates and swing voters further - or do you want to swallow some pride and reach out to them and convince them to come back. Because again the Moderates and Swing voters are what you have to appeal to and it's clear everything done this campaign didn't.

@Kaiolino:

Have we already started sympathizing with the Trump voters? Good lord that was fast. I can see why he won.

No he won because his side wasn't alienating moderates - like or not - it happened in UK with Brexit - it happened in Australia with the Liberal party (Abbott and Turnbull) it's happening in European countries all over.

The second you start alienating moderates you're done no matter what - sure you might not like moderates because they don't take a stand on every issue or back some sensible policies. But when you start telling them to choose a side you better make sure your side is the one that accepts them for who they are warts and all because if your side doesn't the other side will.

@Robby:

But we're apparently a lot more racists and sexist and old than we wanted to believe.

Australian here.

But I'm reminded of a saying from Lucky Number Slevin

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

Can you imagine people who think they're moderates - never been a klansman - didn't yell at people to go back to their own country, constantly being lumped in with people who were - no matter how many times they tried to explain they supported moderate ideals but perhaps didn't feel comfortable with 1 or 2 things they were not on the whole a bad person they got told they were still a bad person.

Eventually they might just decide to stand with the bad people because at least there they're accepted.