> Beyond the elite media he also identifies the prestigious academic institutions, which consequently are the source of elite media and business power, as a part of the apparatus that determines what’s ok to think.
These theories seem to start with the assumption that all ideas are equal, and what's 'ok' is arbitrary preference. We are dealing with truth.
High quality media directly check and corroborate facts; they use journalism to systematize delivery of truth. Quality research is about revealing truths - about nature, society, etc., systematizing it via scientific method.
Yes, humans fail all the time at truth, but they succeed all the time too. These institutions do a pretty good job, IMHO, and simultaneously a very flawed job that could be improved.
We are dealing with power, not truth neccessarily. They lie by omission all the time and selectively and arbitrarily determine what is and what is not news. They exist to sell a narrative that is useful to their life support sources. There's some good apples, of course, but by and large they lie constantly because the lies are useful.
> Quality research is about revealing truths - about nature, society, etc., systematizing it via scientific method
Most things can't be systematized via science because they aren't science. They aren't falsifiable. They are in essence opinions.
IME and IMHO that's not reality. People do care about the truth, as well as power, and many other things. They generally are truthful. It's also (enlightened) self interest and we are highly evolved social beings, able to organize on the scale of billions.
The idea that we are only or mostly our worst, most self-destructive instincts and not, for a equally likely example, only our best instincts, is an odd one, but people love to think it these days.
Caring about power yields more power. All people are a mix of all these qualities, but if some qualities help to survive/succeed in an organization, the organization will be lobsided towards these. It doesn't take evil masterminds, just bits of "worse" instincts that get amplified in the dynamics of the organization.
I find it quite apparent in academia too. Academics do care about the truth and such, but to survive in academia you have to "play the game" even when it means being a bit flexible with the truth or other such principles. Or conversely, being too rigorous with principles means you don't usually stay a (paid) academic for long.
These theories seem to start with the assumption that all ideas are equal, and what's 'ok' is arbitrary preference. We are dealing with truth.
High quality media directly check and corroborate facts; they use journalism to systematize delivery of truth. Quality research is about revealing truths - about nature, society, etc., systematizing it via scientific method.
Yes, humans fail all the time at truth, but they succeed all the time too. These institutions do a pretty good job, IMHO, and simultaneously a very flawed job that could be improved.