TTS Communications: Reclaiming the Media
Using the media to our advantage in the new world
In a Nutshell:
A high-functioning management structure is going to require honest and effective communication. A new organisational structure for humanity will help to streamline communications both up and down the chain, ensuring transparency and accountability. But as usual, the difficulty in implementation lies in the existing power structures…
A daunting blockade in global transformation is the acknowledgement that the media, as it exists today, is controlled by powerful investment giants from whose grip we will not easily pry their favourite toy.
The media for too long has been a weapon of capitalist conglomerates, a tool for manipulation of public perspective, funded by both private and governmental interests. In this discourse, we explore the pivotal role of communications in the realm of global management, delving into how the media, often a double-edged sword, can be harnessed to establish honest and transparent connections with the public.
Key Points:
Upholding transparency and honesty in our media.
Quashing corruptive power structures that influence newscasting.
Diversification of news sources; consolidation and cross-examination of journalism.
Communication between ‘top level’ and ‘ground level’ management.
Democratic input and quality control with media.
New principles of future media to protect integrity.
Discussion:
The challenge of resolving disunity is not merely geographic; it is communicative. In an era defined by interconnectedness and rapid information exchange, effective global management hinges on the ability to navigate the complexities of communication.
Communication can take many forms, and with the advent of digital media, a technological revolution has taken place that has both liberated and ensnared us. Once again there is a vie for dominance and control over information channels, policing and censoring under the guise of ‘security’—which, by my own take, is a veritable war for human consciousness. The advent of the digital age has ushered in unprecedented opportunities for global connectivity, yet it has unveiled the pervasive influence of media as a powerful tool for shaping perspective.
If we are to build a future where trust and transparency are staples of a cohesive system, our communications need to be more direct, free of corruptive influence and monopolistic ownership structures. Systems must be established to ensure easy comprehensibility between demographics, cultures, peoples and nations, as well as responsiveness and accountability to one another. Importantly, we need to bridge the worlds of the thinkers and the doers—a unity of ground-level and global management.
To many, it’s been quite apparent that an irresponsible and questionably positioned media has been a central in perpetuating division and disunity, and it begs the imagination to consider what we could achieve with transparency upheld. And so we look for this change, this profound change in both our official and unofficial communications for the next chapter of humanity. A democratic hand within media spaces is not just a strategic move; it is an imperative step toward fostering genuine and effective global communication.
An informed people and an informed government are both at the height of importance for fair and effective management. For true democracy to exist, the People should know what is really going on—or at least have access to that information—if they are to have a say at all in how society is to be conducted. If decision-makers are to be elected, and potentially elevated above the rest of the populace, empowered to lead or direct, how are they to know what it is the People want or how they feel about a situation? Information flows both ways, all ways, and the head must know where the feet want to go. Oneness is the only true state of democracy, as democracy is the truest form of cooperation.
But in terms of official information channels, what actually exists? Are the news stations we tune into actually government-official, branded, sanctioned, vetted information providers? Or are they just private channels that have become dominant, with no ensured accountability for misleading the public? Apart from direct emergency alerts sent to our mobile phones from time to time, how does the government officially communicate with its people, and how—perhaps more importantly—does it listen to its people?
The Internet has been transformational in bringing a whole new dimension of communication to the table, allowing for universal sharing of information, as well as public engagement and discussion around the information we receive. With the advent of social media, did we just stumble upon democratic evaluation of our news? Did we just happen across an all-way exchange of ideas and opinions, articles, and data?
We have stumbled face-first into a communications medium that defies the one-way script of ‘sit there and learn’ dictated by newspapers, radio, and television. For the first time, the audience can actively and openly discuss the current events without barriers of time and distance, without completely falling prey to the echo-chambering of society. But what of the structures of old, the well-established media companies that dominate the airwaves?
Various films, shows, and books portray the idiosyncrasies of information politics, revealing that the intent of the news is hardly ever altruistic information provision. The underlying competition for ratings, for example, mean that ‘news’ has a strong element of entertainment, needing to source and package information in a way that is punchy, emotional, addictive, yet with the appearance of utmost officiality.
As while most journalists are good people at heart, their intentions set on enlightening the public with interesting, important current affairs, those high above them with their fingers tangled in the puppet strings have a very different outlook. For when you follow the funding and ownership structures of the news stations, almost all major news channels in the Western world have common shareholders—which are, perhaps not coincidentally, also the major shareholders of the banks, pharmaceutical and healthcare giants, tech giants, industrial giants, airlines, entertainment companies, food and beverage companies, energy companies, mining, real estate, biotech, telecommunications, and more.
This is the dangerous endgame of capitalism that has expectedly leeched into both information control and even governmental influence. The moral of the story? Information is privatised. Unbiased, unabridged information provision was never part of the deal. At no point anywhere did anyone state that it was the job of the news to keep you, the citizen, honestly and fully informed. And when commercial interests converge with governing a responsive citizenry, certain strategies have to be used to mobilise the masses or control perspective on events that have the potential to expose or disempower those within their web of global finance.
“Our job is to report the news, not fabricate it. That’s the government’s job.”
—V for Vendetta.
It’s about time we reclaimed the media. Such a powerful and central channel for information should not be in unreliable hands, out of reach of public regulation. If we want honesty to be a value of society, how can we facilitate that honesty systemically? We see the damages and manifestations of dishonesty, and even the necessity in hiding one’s hand when life is a contest of winning and losing. This capitalist game has made there a need to use clandestine tactics to compete against others on the outside while keeping the inside in line, manipulating a peaceful public into compliance by the schemes of a cutthroat industry or government.
Yet it seems some people are hardly bothered when those we are dependent on are exposed for dishonesty. Possibly, it’s more likely that people are unwilling to follow the logic of how that comes about and the full implications of such an observation. Perhaps they are too terrifying to acknowledge in full, too inconvenient in the change it demands from the individual. And when the masses aren’t mobilised by the media, the individual will not even attempt to betray the movement of the herd. The media should be the eyes and ears of the people, not the voice—certainly not a fearmonger, not a tool of division, and not to dissuade them of conviction against a government that pays this ‘free media’ to favour them if not outright lie on their behalf.
"And is it not obvious that, just as it is a crime to disturb the peace when truth reigns, it is also a crime to remain at peace when the truth is being destroyed?"
—Blaise Pascal.
The Modernisation of Media
As it is difficult to completely remove bias from broadcasted information, especially when the full picture of a situation is not known, there is some sense in privatisation of media to allow for as many perspectives and voices as possible. Perspective, after all, creates a much stronger viewpoint. A single official news source would be most efficient and theoretically attractive if done well, but a monopoly over information and perception is an exceptionally dangerous thing.
However, we now have an incredibly powerful tool now at our fingertips:
Artificial Intelligence.
While a variety of free journalism should always be readily accessible and empowered, it’s not typical behaviour for someone to scour every newspaper and television broadcast to compare wording and story details. From a citizen’s point of view, is there any reliable way to make an informed judgement on which source is most accurate and truthful, compare notes, or decode the phraseology so that we cannot be misled by clever wording? To be versed in the nuances and psychology of propaganda (media sponsored by political interests) is too much to ask of the general population, although integrity is the castle on the hill that must be defended so that public influence cannot be a tool for private gain.
Today, we have programs, we have ratings, we have algorithms and feedback systems. To support the notion of an informed populace by using variety of perspective and minimal bias, machinery can be used to curate the facts and perspectives and condense it into a cold, hard, impartial summary of all related news reports, supplying the reader with trust ratings based on how consistent the information is between journalists.
This is but an idea we could use to further evolve and integrate our newscasting, although if there is reluctance to involve such technologies in our daily communications for whatever reason, we may simply seek to uphold some core principles in the changes to our current media layout.
The primary principles and developments of media may be as follows:
Decentralised news — so mainstream information channels can never be monopolised. We may forbid the favouring or dominance of any one broadcasted news station to proof against corruptive strategies. Harnessing a wide array of journalistic sources, we can empower, officialise, and facilitate independent channels.
Allow public engagement — to encourage discussion and help screen against misinformation. Public scrutiny is itself a tool for combatting propaganda, with an open exchange of information helping to ‘fact-check’ or further explore relevant stories and topics. Social media is an effective tool for this.
Create a reviewing/rating system — for public evaluation and quality assurance. Vetting which information channels have provided consistently truthful and complete information, we can incentivise media to provide truthful information while keeping a drawback or punishment system for lying or irresponsible reporting.
While we can surely continue to use print, television, and radio as means to inform and entertain the public, a feedback and quality control system is likely to be digitalised. These developments can all take place through the Digital Democratic Platform (DDP), the political social media that helps to facilitate society-management conversation and collaboration.
With a two-way / all-way communications network, the citizen is enabled—and we might even say responsible—for supplying ground-level perspective. Outside of journalism and sanctioned media, the People can be the eyes and ears of greater society, helping to identify arising problems, areas for improvement, and continuing to proof against manipulation and corruption. The communications framework of the Ten-Tier System is, first and foremost, designed to enable public contribution and influence in all areas of society. The media is just one tool in the drawer.
Under a watchful democracy, we can all be nodes of observation, contemplation, and co-facilitation, submitting ideas and observations electronically to the shared platform so they can be responded to in the appropriate way in the appropriate channels by the appropriate people.
Who decides who and what is appropriate? We do.