[cdrini]

I can't say for certain but I'm not so sure the people you're describing are a sizeable majority. I think most people are just watching news and doing their best. If a news site has a "C" rating on it -- which would require some sort of government regulation to enforce which would be a whole other thing -- which is then clickable and let's you see "exactly" what it has that rating ( eg "17 inaccuracies in last month [links] > 10" ), it could help (a) incentivise the news site to have better standards, (b) incentivise the watcher that they might have to be more diligent. The main thing is: provide any incentive to news to be more reputable.

[kranke155]

If they weren’t a sizeable majority, I don’t think we’d be having the same kind of leaders we’re getting in the west tbh.

[marcosdumay]

I large part of it is that the leader selection is highly oligopolized, and you are partially in denial about how undesirable the other candidates are. (Probably because you see the need to pick them, as they are the rational choice, but you can't feel aligned with their actual values, because they are horrible.)

[kranke155]

It's all connected. The oligopoly of leader selection is highly influenced by the owners of media, which usually are aiming to influence national policy to their preference.

The destruction of the newspaper and the "liberty of information" of the internet is now compressed through information warfare, or as Steve Bannon puts it "flooding the zone with shit".

You flood the main channels (social media now) with disinformation and misinformation, or even information calculated to create as much anger as possible (Cambridge Analytica knew that making people angry was the easiest way to make them change their minds). You use bot networks and sockpuppets to spread it.

Through that you get the same overall effects as when newspapers were a thing - even with "unlimited" channels, they're all showing what you want them to show. You flooded the zone with what you want people to see, and you made it so that it follows the response that the algorithm will propagate it even more (sharing, liking).

Overall the effect is the same. And for the same reason. Those controlling the information want to control leadership, leadership choices, and leadership selection. That's the target.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is why Bob Mercer bought Cambridge Analytica (an information warfare firm that was doing counter terrorism work for NATO) and put Steve Bannon in charge. Influencing elections.

[marcosdumay]

Yes, it's a complex self-reinforcing system.

But blaming the consequences on the capacity of random people to decide for themselves is a completely wicked and wrong conclusion to take from it.

[kranke155]

Im not sure I follow. Blaming the consequences of the capacity of random people? Could you expand and clarify what you mean there?

[JeremyNT]

I suspect part of this is that "news junkies" are also more inclined to be "likely voters" and vice-versa, so you have some selection bias towards these people in the electorate.

[mistermann]

Our "good" leaders are only good because they are "measured" (perceived) on an absolute scale. This is due to our heavily ingrained cultural norms and beliefs.