[Tainnor]

Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan.

Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that doesn't mean that there is no value to news, it means that maybe you should read from multiple sources, try to correct for known biases, ask critical questions etc.

Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here.

(Also, empirically, while trust in media and institutions has eroded, I don't believe that "most" people don't trust institutions. Maybe that's the case in the US, but certainly not everywhere.)

[TheAdamAndChe]

Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here

What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.)

As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.

[Tainnor]

Democracy to me means giving the people participation in government. It doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that's why we have representative government and not (except in Switzerland) a system that works purely by plebiscites.

Switzerland is a special case because the country is small and wealthy with a mostly well educated population and their democratic tradition is a very old one, but in many other cases, moving to a more direct form of democracy can have significant downsides, see e.g. the Brexit vote.

And I'm not talking about suppressing anyone's opinion here, that would certainly not be right. It's more about how we as a society shouldn't overemphasise loud people on social media.

[ebruchez]

Switzerland doesn't "work purely by plebiscites". It's also a representative government. But it is true that there is more direct democracy, through so-called "initiatives" and "referendums". Those involve the population a few times a year.

Note that California does something very similar, although the votes are less frequent.

[Tainnor]

You're right, I was simplifying too much. I'm quite aware of the political system in Switzerland, since I grew up there, but I should have been more precise in my comment.

[thu2111]

The Swiss tradition of having lots of referendums isn't very old. Actually up until the 1970s it was hardly done, partly because the government had a habit of ignoring them and not implementing them properly. Around 50 years ago the press put pressure on politicians to get more serious about it, and the number of referendums has gone up a lot over time as a consequence.

The Brexit vote is an excellent example of giving people participation in government. By the way, as you seem to be under the charming impression that members of Parliament are intellectually superior to the people who vote them in, you'll be pleased to know the UK now has a massive majority of MPs in favour of implementing Brexit properly. As their opinions are more valid than everyone else's, including yours, you presumably must now concede that Brexit is a superb idea.

[Tainnor]

The problem with Brexit is not necessarily just whether or not Brexit had happened, but the fact that after the referendum, there was a supposed "popular mandate" of implementing Brexit, but nobody could say what exactly that mandate was since the people didn't vote on a particular proposal, but only on a vague idea. This led to the downfall of not one, but two governments, and it would have nearly triggered a constitutional crisis.

By contrast, if there hadn't been a referendum, either the MPs would have agreed on a specific Brexit proposal, with everyone exactly knowing what they were getting into, or they wouldn't have been able to reach any consensus and would have remained in the EU (similar to how the Trump administration couldn't repeal Obamacare because nobody could agree on the alternative), both of which to me seem preferable than the mess which Brain had to endure for years after the referendum.

Also, it's not necessarily just the fact that MPs are intellectually superior than the rest of the population (although I do think that, generally, the dumbest of the dumbest make it into parliaments somewhat more rarely), but the fact that parliamentarism and the associated procedures, laws and standards has some checks and balances built-in that pure mob rule (in the most extreme of versions) doesn't.

(and as a final remark: I'm not generally opposed to any sort of plebiscite. I'm just saying that there are definitive drawbacks to direct democracy - you can see that even in Switzerland, where the system is generally much better thought out and established than in the case of the rushed Brexit referendum - that you need to prepare for, and you shouldn't just say "the will of the people counts" because there are huge pitfalls in trying to figure out what "the will of the people" even is (see: basically every populist government, and/or politician in world history, there are even examples of this dating as far back as the Roman Republic)).

[Nasrudith]

Really the main issue with the referendum is that it was treated as the worst possible set of constraints - going on a fixed conclusion with no implementation details.

The only thing it produces reliably is dogma and absurdities because it is insensitive to all input conditions. A proper "referendum" would produce a stack of plans to be voted upon. Instead the result is an incoherent demand is to spin straw into gold because mining for gold is too dirty. Even ignoring how they expect the rest of the world to give them better deals by being more selfish and with less leverage they expect an impossible border which neither divides Ireland nor limits freedom of movement within the UK nor ceding any territory. So they just have a buck passing contest instead.

[thu2111]

The question was very clear - do you want to leave the EU, yes/no. People voted yes, that means, leaving completely. The meaning of the word is quite plain, it isn't some vague idea, although anti-Brexit people have been coming up with all kinds of explanations for why Brexit should never happened, of which that is one of them. Spare me. It means leaving, as in, not being a member or paying the EU any money any more.

The constitutional crisis and mess that followed was created entirely by people who desperately wanted to not do what they had promised to do. Those people have now been cleared out at the last the election, or so it seems at the moment.

"if there hadn't been a referendum, either the MPs would have agreed on a specific Brexit proposal"

I really wonder where you learn about British politics. The problem was created by MPs refusing to implement the vote they gave people, and doing everything they could to then weasel out of it. The only reason they granted a referendum at all is they were sure they'd win, and because UKIP were forcing them to. There is zero chance they'd have ever agreed on a specific proposal in the absence of a referendum.

pure mob rule ... I'm not generally opposed to any sort of plebiscite

You clearly are. Calling them "plebiscite" and "mob rule" is a pretty big give away, as is this belief that simple questions with simple answers are some huge intellectual puzzle that somehow politicians are incapable of solving.

Brexit was and is the right decision. It is an excellent example of why referendums are a good thing. Staying in the EU dictatorship much longer would have destroyed British democracy completely. Look at how much of a fight the establishment put up over leaving. It's a toxic, regressive project that runs counter to the last 200 years of history, in which vast empires were all steadily got rid of, often at great cost in blood, by people who recognised the huge value of nations. Look at this thread: arguments that MPs are somehow better than the people and have a natural right to rule. No thanks.

However, regardless of our respective personal views, you contradicted yourself earlier. Brexit is now the policy of the indirect form of democracy as well as the direct form. It is, by your own logic, the right decision and by implication, was the right decision before as well.

[thu2111]

The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan.

Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.

[Tainnor]

I don't know Joe Rogan. And of course, there's always going to be exceptional bloggers, YT content producers, etc., same as there have always been independent journalists. This doesn't change the fact that, on average, John Doe on Facebook is not going to have very good insights into a topic.

[thu2111]

But John Doe in the Guardian is? What's the difference?

Joe Rogan is a worldwide phenomenon larger than most TV channels. Around 200 million downloads a month, and he's basically a guy who interviews people on YouTube. Plenty of independents online with huge reach compared to older media.

[tt433]

He also sells snake oil

[sjg007]

The default state should be to treat everything as suspect until proven otherwise. The problem is that goes against the central tenant of Americanism.

[PrinceKropotkin]

Regardless of whether or not "amplifying vox populi" is your preferred answer, it's the future of media. Why would I ever trust Wolf Blitzer over my favorite professor, or my favorite historian? Why would I look to the NyTimes when they don't cover the stories I consider important? Why would I trust the editorial staff at all given what I find in the opinion section?

This is not to say that popular media outlets are lying or have an explicit agenda, it's just virtually impossible to find one that seems to reflect a world coherent with the one you live in.

[Tainnor]

If the purpose of the media is just to reflect the world-view you already have, then there is no point to the media.

Also, nobody says that you have to read the NY Times. There's, both in the US and internationally, a huge range of media of all sorts of political convictions, which you can read instead, although as said: the best possible option is to read from multiple sources with hopefully different takes on a particular topic (e.g. it's also sometimes good to read foreign media because they will inevitably have a different perspective). The point is more that there is value in editorialised content as opposed to random people screaming on social media. Plus, your favourite professor or historian is likely to have written columns for newspapers, too.