If only we could enact some sort of practice - a doctrine really - where those who choose to engage in the disseminating of information of any sort are duty bound to be impartial and allow for good faith counter arguments. Doesn’t that sound fair?
There really is actual truth in the world, and opinions are fine too, so long as they’re presented as such. “The ocean has had record high temperatures every day for the past year” is an objective fact. “The oil companies have intentionally hidden the extent of their impact on climate change” is (currently) an opinion that can be debated by people from both sides of the issue if they do so in good faith. As one example.
Who determines what is considered good faith, though? Who sets the line between fact and fiction?
One of the issues we encounter in this sort of scenario is that the media has a habit of forcing “two sides” perspectives of issues that have one objectively correct answer because the topic is needlessly politicized. News stories about the effects of climate change should not be held up next to counterarguments that question the validity/motivations of the scientific community, but they are anyways because one party believes that they can legislate truth.
Whichever party is in power at the time is the one that gets to control how this nebulous standard would be applied, and so you’re only one Christofascist movement away from climate change being a debatable subject and religious doctrine being indisputable fact.
If only we could enact some sort of practice - a doctrine really - where those who choose to engage in the disseminating of information of any sort are duty bound to be impartial and allow for good faith counter arguments. Doesn’t that sound fair?
There really is actual truth in the world, and opinions are fine too, so long as they’re presented as such. “The ocean has had record high temperatures every day for the past year” is an objective fact. “The oil companies have intentionally hidden the extent of their impact on climate change” is (currently) an opinion that can be debated by people from both sides of the issue if they do so in good faith. As one example.
Who determines what is considered good faith, though? Who sets the line between fact and fiction?
One of the issues we encounter in this sort of scenario is that the media has a habit of forcing “two sides” perspectives of issues that have one objectively correct answer because the topic is needlessly politicized. News stories about the effects of climate change should not be held up next to counterarguments that question the validity/motivations of the scientific community, but they are anyways because one party believes that they can legislate truth.
Whichever party is in power at the time is the one that gets to control how this nebulous standard would be applied, and so you’re only one Christofascist movement away from climate change being a debatable subject and religious doctrine being indisputable fact.