This episode was a rare treat. Our EconTalk host Russ Roberts delivered a monologue based on an essay he posted on Medium. In both, he gives his take on why political discourse has gotten so much angrier today. The growth in outrage and intolerance troubles Roberts, and he casts a great deal of the blame for it on the changing nature of the news media in the digital age. But why should we care what others are watching on the Internet? If you want to watch cat videos and I want to watch Shakespeare, what’s the problem?
Roberts has given us a lot to think about… And perhaps most importantly, to talk about. So we hope you’ll help us continue this conversation, at your dinner table, in your classroom, or your next social outing.
1- Roberts likens politics today to a bloodsport. But politics has always been contentious, some would argue. What, to Roberts, has changed, and why does he believe, “things are different?”
2- Roberts is concerned that “the Internet lets people get their news and information about the way the world works–fit, comfort, style.” What does he mean by this? In this vein he also poses a challenge worth repeating… How many news stories have you heard that have turned out to be wrong, and how did you find out they were wrong?
3- Perhaps the most disturbing question Roberts poses in the entire monologue is, “What if people don’t care about what’s true?” How would you respond to this question. What can be done to make the “return” to truth higher?
4- What are your thoughts on the five suggestions Roberts offers to make the sphere of political discussion a more hospitable place? Is he too optimistic? What else would you add by way of suggestion. What are some things you do to promote civility?
5- How might market institutions “create a set of objective, civilized news sources?” What role is there for markets generally in the creating and/or maintaining of cultural norms- particularly norms of civility?
READER COMMENTS
Carmen Bevilacqua
Sep 3 2018 at 7:36am
I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine and being a former military man he was telling me about how new recruits to the military have less and less of a “team work” mentally and more and more of a “hero” complex. It’s almost as if this new generation of recruits want to yell out hey look at me “I’M THE HERO!”
Something struck me. I am a Econ-Talk listener for almost 2 years and have been effected buy many of your talks. In some of your more recent talks you have talked about why political discourse has gotten so much angrier today and is social media to blame. Also in some discussions of late, specifically regarding living comfortably in essence is easier than in years past. Citing that most things that took us hour to do now can be done in minutes using new technologies. ( like a smartphone)
So…. Making friends and maintaining those friendships should take less time.
Another thing that I have began to understand was externalitys.
Simply put – the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.
Also something I already knew but has been reinforced was the principal of supply and demand.
Again- quantity of a good supplied (i.e., the amount owners or producers offer for sale) rises as the market price rises, and falls as the price falls.
Conversely, the quantity of a good demanded falls as the price rises, and vice versa…
So… Is social media making friendships, teamwork, and the concept of working together for the common good, taking less time thus making it cheap?…
And if it’s cheaper is it worth less?…
Untill it is worthless?
I argue that we have not, and don’t think ever will reach, that tipping point that you read about in dystopian science fiction novels. I have too much faith in how intelligent and practical people at large can be. Just in the last 100 years, history has given us many examples of horror for pragmatic people to draw from.
We live in a world of degrees of unpredictable severity.
This particular Toy Thing that we called social media has become far more severe and important than anyone would have predicted.
I would like to believe at certain point these baubles will not be the focus of our days and there will be a “market correction”.
Unfortunately before this happens, there must be a degree of chaos which will have its own degree of severity. Which will spin off several other externalitys which may be positive or negative or both . One thing is for sure is things will change, and what that changes will be, greater minds than ours wouldn’t dare guess.
With hope, people will remember the Aristotle quote “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.
We have forgotten the intellectual heroes of our past and traded them in for an iPhone App. I believe that this market is in for a serious correction.
Max Ross
Sep 23 2018 at 5:53pm
You say that you are definitely against any form of government regulation of the media, but did not mention that the government used to require that the news treat issues of national importance with balance, honesty, and integrity. This did not lead to an Orwellian nightmare, on the contrary the news in general was more balanced and factual. Would a requirement that the news be factual necessarily lead to some kind of authoritarian government? If I buy an encyclopedia that purports to be factual, leading to personal damages, couldn’t I sue for fraud? Doesn’t the news purport to give us the facts? Shouldn’t it be required to do so? I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. If the world is burning, should the news be able to say that’s definitely not so? Smear the scientific community and its findings? Present the opinions of petroleum spokespersons as unbiased “scientists”? The institutions we depend upon for unbiased truths have fallen apart. Wouldn’t it make sense to lawfully require the news to do their job, rather than try and rely on politeness and taking a day off from social media?
Anyway, I appreciated your analysis, especially your observation that when there was only one t.v. in a room, news information had to appeal to the entire family across the political spectrum.
Comments are closed.