[uniqueuid]

The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy.

Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.

Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.

[edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).

[ceilingcorner]

accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices

Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.

[uniqueuid]

Disclaimer: I study this stuff as a scientist.

Yes accountability especially in the US is lacking. But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools).

If you compare the US media to other nations, and especially if you look at them historically, they have been pretty good at this.

I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some.

[edit due to reply limit]: Of course NPR is biased, what do you expect? There is no neutrality in things that human believe. The difference is having public guidelines, committing to them and listening to criticism That's accountability.

[jwond]

> But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools).

Publishing a code of ethics means absolutely nothing if it is not followed.

For example, NPR’s code of ethics says “We know that truth is not possible without the active pursuit of a diversity of voices, especially those most at risk of being left out.” and “In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity.”

but just recently they had a segment where they spent an hour trashing free speech without a single person to argue in favor of free speech. So much for “diversity of voices.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...

> I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some.

I’d argue your standards are too low. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn’t mean we should be content that things aren’t quite as bad here.

[ceilingcorner]

NPR is just as biased and deliberately misleading as any other organization. The fact that they have a link on their website is not much proof of anything.

Replying to your edit: well, that is my point. They are all biased. This idea that having a public code of conduct means anything is nonsense.

When’s the last time a mainstream media organization was held accountable for anything? Even the people that helped sell the WMD lie are still in positions of power.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

The reality of the situation is that there are no meaningful standards of conduct and everyone is biased. Legacy brands with elite clout are no different.

[uniqueuid]

I'm sorry that you are downvoted, because your perception is pretty common and not completely wrong.

There are many well-documented cases where accountability failed, and brilliant people have written about it (Chomsky, Lippmann etc.).

But - and this is really important - it's not helpful to cynically assume that either everything is OK or that there is no accountability/meaning/use at all.

All of the important things in society (discussions, getting along, identification of problems, negotiating solutions) are not a state, but a process. There is accountability, but only as much as citizens and institutions manage to produce. Go ahead and help (constructively)!

The alternative to politics is (civil) war, the alternative to free media is basically the middle ages.

[ceilingcorner]

I wouldn’t say I am cynical, merely realistic. In my opinion, it is a fool’s errand to think that accountability or unbiased news is even a possibility. It goes against the nature of the thing. An unbiased media has never been the case and never will be. Full stop.

Thus it is better to recognize that no single entity will ever be truly honest and to instead read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

[Applejinx]

There is also the societal expectation that, just because a mainstream media news source asserts something, it may possibly not be 100% authentic. Never mind the direction that doubt can lead you: there's a trace of skepticism.

What's going on (by now, obviously) with Twitter and Facebook and all, is that they are a vector for bypassing skepticism, by delivering information purportedly from your personal friend who is personally trusted.

Still no neutrality, but if you can make a web of propaganda through people who are believing things their apparent 'friends' (through various signifiers) are saying, and coordinate that, you can propagandize WAY more effectively than through mainstream media.

And that's what's happening. Everywhere.

[pueblito]

You found it ok to go around the sites rules (as enforced by the reply limit) by editing to reply. You’re breaking the rules to influence others to your opinions, and you study people breaking the rules to influence others to their opinions.

[uniqueuid]

Thanks for pointing out the irony!

This is actually a great example:

- I broke the rules (code as law), but was transparent about it

- You held me accountable

- Others can read our exchange and adjust their trust (in me in particular)

That's a good outcome, I guess!

[busterarm]

Aye. Journalism is activism now.

[AbrahamParangi]

Fascinating to see this framed as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" vs true and false. I wonder how much disagreement on the topic comes from the distinctions in these meanings.

[uniqueuid]

Well, true and false are practically unusable concepts outside of (and sometimes even in) courts.

My use of (il-)legitimate ties to the legal framework, which means I don't need to take a normative (=subjective) position - I'm only describing the state of the rules and the mechanisms at play.

You can also use economic terms if you want: Illegitimate manipulation of public opinion doesn't pay (the platforms), advertisements as legitimate manipulation of public opinion pays (the platforms).

[AbrahamParangi]

As a corollary, I wonder just how much disagreement is actually "objective truth exists" vs "objective truth does not exist", repackaged.

[denton-scratch]

> Media are legitimate influences

> Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence

So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex?

> Society agreed to allow media to exist

"Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it.

> (and are held to that standard)

Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

[uniqueuid]

> So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex?

Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc.

> "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it.

Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ...

> Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)

[denton-scratch]

In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.

[uniqueuid]

Only if they are communicating with some identifier!

If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.