Genuine question. How do you define 'media' today? I do not think media in the traditional sense of the word exists. For me, media has become editorial and op-eds which reflect either the outlets viewership or benefactors.
There will always come a point where trust will require a leap of faith to an extent, a sense of trustworthiness versus a list of credentials. Sadly, we are at a point where more often than not, years of study and knowledge is being fudged off for the opinion of, say, a podcast host.
For me, the biggest issue regarding the lack of trust/need for speed equation we find ourselves in is that it supersedes politics and only fully embraces economic return for a very select percentage of the world. It feels to me that the endgame of this equation is usually an enormous amount of capital, power, or both for a very minuscule amount of people, who continue to be divided and pitted against each other via various 'information' platforms and populated 'agendas'. Left, right, whatever. At the very top of the economic table they DGAF about such trivialities.
The media landscape has dramatically changed but the influence that those those traditional media outlets have over government officials who enact policy has not fallen away at the same rate as their viewership and reader figures.
To clarify my previous point. It’s not actually the experts that are the issue. We should trust the experts. But the mechanism for how their knowledge is shared is deeply flawed. Which is why I would push back on you taking issue with someone listening to the podcast host over a news presenter or journalist. What’s the actual difference between them? They will each take the information provided by the experts and regurgitate it in a way that fits the narrative demanded by their audience or by the paymasters.
If anything I would say the Podcast landscape is more likely to give the floor to the experts via a long form interview. As well as being more likely to have conversations with people they and their audience disagree with.
Also why I find it strange that the Fauci story this week would be chalked up as yesterdays news by you and MAGA grift conspiracy theories by others. Because that is a perfect example of how, in the background the scientists and experts are doing fantastic and noble work, but what ends up being projected to the public via politicians, the media and in Faucis case public health officials ranged from misleading and at times outright lies.
If you look at wealth inequality as the example now being discussed here. The focus is entirely on taxation of individuals. From the media, and therefore also the public, there is virtually zero conversation about who controls the monetary supply.
The Bank of England play a far greater role in wealth inequality than rich people who pay a lower marginal tax rate than the middle and working class. But very very few people understand the lack of control and regulatory power the British Government holds over BofE which similarly exists in most western countries.
Fwiw I put far more thoughts on a regular basic in to this and how it will impact society and peoples lives than as an example Fauci telling lies. That just happened to be a big part of the news cycle this week. The lack of financial litiracy from people taking on debt. The inability to save money for retirement.
But what really keeps me up at night is that even people who are sensible with their finances are still getting wiped out by decisions made by Central Banks who we as the voters have almost no control over via our elected officials. Something that if the public understood would have near complete alignment from left and right as well.
