> So the question is obviously, how do we change the news ecosystem from what it is, to a system that makes people better informed?

People tend to want their worldview confirmed. If you want people to be better informed, one way would be to make them angry when they encounter things designed to manipulate them.

>So the question is obviously, how do we change the news ecosystem from what it is, to a system that makes people better informed?

I think that other than marginal gains, this is a pipedream. The reason the news media is the way it is is due to the choices of the people consuming it. A change in the industry itself is unlikely to put a dent into this, because people will just go elsewhere to get the 'news' they want to hear.

We would need some kind of a fundamental change in society. Maybe if we completely revamped the style of childhood education, it would be possible to change what people look for in the news. I think that practically such a fundamental change is next to impossible. People talk a lot about how we need changes to the education system, but they're usually either spewing hot air or only want small changes.

I disagree. The last bit of what you're saying is particularly telling. It seems to me that you think large change is impossible because you think large changes happens all at once, instead of as a series of small changes, and as a result you're undervaluing small changes.

I think the question that needs to be answered before that is "how do you get people to want to be better informed".

If that was already true, there never would have been an Enquirer or Weekly World News.

This is a typical capitalist strategy for displacing blame and therefore responsibility: the supply side says they're just putting out what there's a demand for, and blames the demand for their own actions. The truth is, marketing creates demand, and people can't consume content if you don't create it.

Ultimately, I'm not looking to blame the supply side, either: certainly there's some blame for the demand side too. In fact, I don't believe blame is a productive thing to do in this situation or most situations. But I am trying to change it from the supply side, because when you try to create change from the demand side, you run into more issues with affecting free choice which makes this and many other problems more intractable.

I also think you're wrong about why the Enquirer et al exist: some people take these as just humor and get their information elsewhere, and others want to be informed, but due to bugs in the human brain, think that sources like the Enquirer are good sources of information. Neither of these are "people not wanting to be informed".

>So the question is obviously, how do we change the news ecosystem from what it is, to a system that makes people better informed?

By bettering basic education. People could learn the relationships and interdependecies of the system and society itself, including the role of information. Why not learn everything through RPGs?

This would create a demand for better news sources in the long term.

I don't understand your reasoning for why you think better basic education would increase demand for more informative news sources. Could you explain more?

Sorry for replying late.

Because education increases environmental awareness, and informative news provides it. So you'd want informative news to remain environmentally aware.

The most educated people I know all have at least a handful of opinions that are provably untrue. We're talking about people who correctly modeled economic crashes, developed and implemented SAP modules for a lot of companies you know, and (multiple on some of them) PHDs. Among them, a flat-earther, a guy who believes communism is straight-up awesome, and one who honestly believes that most "corruption" is a made-up attack on the corrupt.

Each time I encounter this, I am stunned. But it still happens.