Pop Up Politics

Live debates are a terrible way to vet a president, but it's a tradition we appear to be stuck with. One way to improve them, and political speeches generally, would be a more integrated method of fact checking, perhaps along the lines of VH1's Pop Up Video format. In addition to the videos, a website with verifiable fact checking sources would be required for true credibility. There should be more than facts, though, as keeping it entertaining through humor will help more people stay engaged. I believe this is the driving force behind why Daily Show viewers have hisotrically had a high level of news knowledge: because they watch consistently. The popularity of that (I submitted the suggestion to them in 2008 and again in 2012, but never received a response) or a similar program would help offset diminished interest stemming from the fact that the political events would have already aired and they'd have the resources to achieve a rapid turnaround time. 

The Future of News

This is a rewritten version of a post on my private blog from 12/12/2008.

Newspapers continue to see their fortunes dwindle as circulation shrinks and classifieds (previously 50% of their income) flee to free online venues. Papers now seem to realize that the Internet is their future, but no one has yet figured out how to reconcile the lower profit margins with their operating costs. While it is becoming obvious that a news agency's primary role is not distributing news, I would argue that additionally it isn't generating news either. The need to increase efficiency will lead to many fewer reporters and editorials, except for extremely important events and the idea of dedicated correspondents will have to largely disappear. This isn't to say that there will not be professional, full time journalists, but the number that work solely for one news agency will seriously decline.  What really matters ultimately is the assurance of a news agency that their information will be accurate and their opinion pieces insightful. Thus, editors and reputations will be as important as ever, and should give established agencies an initial edge over the wave of newcomers. In theory, what a news service could finally become is essentially a fact checker, sorting unsubstantiated rumor from credible news and assuring the quality of editorials of anyone, not just those directly employed by them. The ability of users to designate trusted agencies to vet stories for them could serve as a critical method, along with recommendation systems, of making sense of the increasing torrent of information.

News and Opinion Separation & News Accreditation

Like you didn't already know who I had in mind?

It is now common practice for opinion pieces and news stories to be closely juxtaposed and this has the effect of confusing less sophisticated viewers about what is actually fact. There should be strict limits on the placement of the two types of content (disclaimers wouldn't be adequate), ideally limiting them to entirely different programs. Additionally, outlets claiming to present news should have to be certified. On a regular basis polls should be taken about their viewership's knowledge of current events, much as some private studies do now. They'd have to be properly sized and controlled for statistical significance, of course. Any program failing to meet a minimum threshold could not call itself a news program. They could still present any content they like, so it's not really censorship, but rather much more like truth in advertising.

As a further extension, news programs shouldn't be allowed to generate revenue in the usual manner. Instead, any compensation received should be a function of not only audience size, but also accuracy measures. Any program labelled as news should be required to use this system. The gating accuracy measures mentioned previously would still be needed, as there can be motives other than profit for disseminating false information.

Anecdotal News Stories Are a Waste of Time

You know how news stories often lay out the experiences of a single individual, family, or small company in an attempt to put a human face on larger events? Yeah, well, I hate that. It's dull, and adds no useful information. In fact it does the opposite by ignoring meaningful statistics in favor of anecdotal evidence. Oh, and did I mention it's dull? So dull. To paraphrase Stalin, a single hardship is anecdotal, a million hardships is a statistic. Sorry, couldn't resist.