The Impact of Sensationalism: Is Free Speech Undermining Democracy?

/ C.D. Phillips

Free Speech: The Demise of Democracy?

I’m concerned that, without careful consideration, free speech could inadvertently destroy democracy. When 24/7 ratings-driven media prioritizes sensationalism over truth to boost viewership and profit, it fails to serve the public’s best interest.

National reporting trickles down information in scripted texts, propagating biased information to the masses. Most sensible people have stopped using cable TV and now rely on social media, particularly YouTube, online journals, and articles. We see snippets of information and disinformation formatted to get the most hits, such as clickbait. It’s primarily for-profit propaganda with legitimate journalism mixed to add validity to all. Does “free speech” permit them to LIE to the public?

These same viewers also watch the local news to understand what’s happening with the weather and their area in general. The trickle-down biased text is presented as facts to all. The viewer has the illusion that they see legitimate facts from legitimate sources, which frame their reality.

Socialized to trust the News: Most of us don’t have the time or inclination to question or fact-check the information. We were raised in an era where news was supposed to be accurate, and the information was meant to inform the population of important events that might affect the health and welfare of the broader population. Journalistic integrity was expected in the reporting of information. Granted, some of this information was deliberately biased, but it is not at the current level.

As a nation and as families, we are divided by the cognitive dissonance of disparate realities.

Seeing is believing for those who don’t have time or desire to fact-check everything. We trust what we see.

For those of us who are information junkies and fact-checkers, it’s a maddening reality that there are legitimate concerns from all parts of the electorate.

  • Far Left contingent, who resist slow changes, want a perfect world immediately, and refuse to believe that our government requires time and cooperation to meet goals for the “common good.” They are lost in their bubble of an ideal world. “I want it, and I want it now.”
  • There is legitimacy to their desire for immediate change, especially when facing the existential threat of global warming. They are correct. It’s an emergency. But it won’t be solved overnight, and people must work together to develop a common goal of survival if we are to have any chance of survival as a species. They also desire a pluralistic society where diversity is celebrated as a strength and not regulated by anything but the constitution.
  • Far-right contingent, who want limited government, seem to be willing to give up the freedom of others as long as their individual rights include guns, religion, sex, nothing new, and marriage. They want state rule and a reduction of federal overreach in their daily lives. They want inflation and prices of goods and services (crackers and gas) to be controlled by the state and federal governments, but they directly blame whoever is the president, not corporations, if the cost of living is not in line with their meager pay or social safety net entitlements. They want regulations as long as it doesn’t interfere with their daily lives. They want closed borders even though the nation is great because of diversity and the immigrant base.
  • There is legitimacy in their concerns, too. They do not want a diverse, global society where all are welcome and celebrated. The acceptance of gay marriage and normalization of transgenderism and gender diversity does not fit into the Judeo-Christian narrative of our founders or our constitution. The problem is that part of revisionist history is simply not true.

It’s a lie that this is a Christian nation with a constitution founded on guns, liberty, and the church. It’s just wrong. Our framers wanted a government “of the people, for the people,” without royalty, religion, or rule by oligarchs. Freedom meant freedom from religion, too. Sadly, it also meant freedom for all white landowners, not women and slaves.

  • Center right and left contingents are caught in the middle between the extremes, left to cherry-pick the information that makes sense, lost in a sea of fact-checking and countering misinformation.

What’s the answer?

These opinions are my own, no doubt generalized and biased too, based on my interactions with all contingents. As a scientist I factcheck constantly and spend huge amounts of time researching and using tools of information literacy. Even so, I also find that I too am challenged to discern truth from fiction. It’s an ongoing, daily exercise in seeking the truth in an overwhelming sea of misinformation and out and out lies.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024, June 1). freedom of speech. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech

https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/information-bias/

Stefon, M. (2024, May 21). fairness doctrine. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine

Wikipedia contributors. (2021, July 24). Creative journalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:30, June 5, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_journalism&oldid=1035302595

Leave a comment