While I see the second consideration contributing to more factual and reliant news, I do not exactly get how pre-empting the narrative.
Take the senator example:
' More effective would look something like this: "the senator denies he is resigning because of a bribery investigation. Instead, he said he is becoming the president of a university."" '
Sure, one can see that the narrative has a solid conclusion, leaving little room for misconstruing the senator's underlying motivations; however, projecting onto a moral stand would also mean you're alienating anyone who wants to consider an alternative, no?
Are we saying that the narrative is going to be reframed to cater to every single viewer / reader / consumer?
Furthermore, there are already several issues with the current narrative presenting tactics within the media : the audience hankers after entertainment quotient of the consumers, the media hankers after engagement metrics. etc
Therefore, it wouldn't exactly matter what moral values are being targeted is in some cases. Some folks are going to simply remain indifferent. IMHO, to even convince the audience to care for the truth more than what is reported is a huge task, and should be the actual goal, wherein incentivizing deliberation would be a great start if that can be done., and it actually seems more plausible than convincing people about what is and isn't.
The Senator story is an example of causal correction, not of moral reframing; you're right in that I should've included a distinct example. The linked video has several, if you're curious.
Yes, a narrative does need to be reframed for every segment of the audience that it needs to reach. To be clear, this isn't algorithmic personalization to every individual, though the selection of which narrative to surface could (and already is, today) be algorithmic.
It isn't necessary for every story, but the most crucial ones tend to be morally ambiguous and involve value judgements that must be reframed.
Thanks, also, for the call-out on content creators' and distributors' reluctance to change engagement metrics. This is true, and is where I alluded to "shareholder" value: it's becoming clearer that slowing down "bad" engagement is a net good to the platforms and shareholders as well; it's obviously been true for the most egregious content, but with growing public and regulatory concern, it's becoming prudent for platforms to take proactive action in grayer areas too.
You could place me in the camp that thinks "nudging" action by content creators and distributors is more effective than expecting an innate shift in consumers' behavior.
There's a lot of nuance there, and it merits an article in itself. Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to clarify!
While I see the second consideration contributing to more factual and reliant news, I do not exactly get how pre-empting the narrative.
Take the senator example:
' More effective would look something like this: "the senator denies he is resigning because of a bribery investigation. Instead, he said he is becoming the president of a university."" '
Sure, one can see that the narrative has a solid conclusion, leaving little room for misconstruing the senator's underlying motivations; however, projecting onto a moral stand would also mean you're alienating anyone who wants to consider an alternative, no?
Are we saying that the narrative is going to be reframed to cater to every single viewer / reader / consumer?
Furthermore, there are already several issues with the current narrative presenting tactics within the media : the audience hankers after entertainment quotient of the consumers, the media hankers after engagement metrics. etc
Therefore, it wouldn't exactly matter what moral values are being targeted is in some cases. Some folks are going to simply remain indifferent. IMHO, to even convince the audience to care for the truth more than what is reported is a huge task, and should be the actual goal, wherein incentivizing deliberation would be a great start if that can be done., and it actually seems more plausible than convincing people about what is and isn't.
Thanks for the in-depth response, PV!
The Senator story is an example of causal correction, not of moral reframing; you're right in that I should've included a distinct example. The linked video has several, if you're curious.
Yes, a narrative does need to be reframed for every segment of the audience that it needs to reach. To be clear, this isn't algorithmic personalization to every individual, though the selection of which narrative to surface could (and already is, today) be algorithmic.
It isn't necessary for every story, but the most crucial ones tend to be morally ambiguous and involve value judgements that must be reframed.
Thanks, also, for the call-out on content creators' and distributors' reluctance to change engagement metrics. This is true, and is where I alluded to "shareholder" value: it's becoming clearer that slowing down "bad" engagement is a net good to the platforms and shareholders as well; it's obviously been true for the most egregious content, but with growing public and regulatory concern, it's becoming prudent for platforms to take proactive action in grayer areas too.
You could place me in the camp that thinks "nudging" action by content creators and distributors is more effective than expecting an innate shift in consumers' behavior.
There's a lot of nuance there, and it merits an article in itself. Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to clarify!