By Ron Raskin
As I wrote before, one key part of the New Western Doctrine is creating a shared, fair, and unbiased information space within the Western Supranational Union.
There are several ways to build this space, all based on rules that ensure information is accurate and balanced, fighting against fake news and different kinds of bias. This isn’t about censorship—the press must stay free—but about reducing bias as much as possible.
Here are two practical examples of how this could work, though there might be other ideas too:
The Right to Be Heard:
Every Western country should have the chance to fairly share its side in discussions happening in other Western countries. This is a basic right for any nation, just like how any person in the West has the right to defend themselves in court.
In practice, this means that big media outlets (and social media algorithms) that publish or show content about another Western ally should also give that country a fair chance to share its view. For example, if CNN writes 1,000 words about Israel, it should also include about 250 words from official Israeli sources to let Israel’s voice be heard. Similarly, if Twitter exposes 1,000 impressions about Israel to people in Western countries outside Israel, it should also expose about 250 impressions from official Israeli sources.
The Right to Be Warned:
Today’s technology can measure how biased an article or post is. Just like people in Europe know a car’s pollution rating before buying, readers should see a “bias rating” on articles. Media outlets and social media should be required to show this rating.
Creating a shared, fair information space inside the Western Supranational Union will help build common empathy bias, trust and understanding among member countries. It will align their interests and policies, making the whole Union stronger and benefiting every member.
The same idea can also be used within each country to make sure different political parties get a fair chance in the national media and on social media. Media should share different opinions and ideas, not be used as political tool to control people.
The idea is interesting, but it is very hard to implement.
“For example, If CNN writes 1,000 words about Israel, it should also include about 250 words from official Israeli sources to let Israel’s voice be heard”
1. There are a lot of media and a lot of articles, so there are no possibilies to answer for all. How to choose?
2. Each publishing must be fast – othervise it’s no meaning. How much time to give for answers?
3. There are very differents lows in different countries. How to implement your idea in so different worlds?
Much more easier idea: “fact checking” signs near every article. If you want to public fast – ok, but with the sign “not checked”, till some indepent official group will check it and change sign to “checked”. In such way Media can be more or less “fact checking true” rating done.
1. There should be an option to present nations own view. It is not so much about response but rather about showing alternative view. That can be done either by nations officials or anyone else authorized by official agency.
2. again: it is not about response but rather about being able to post alternative view…
3. It must be based on common agreements between nations. Just as there is cooperation in research or military spaces or in law enforcement: the same should hold here as well
“Fact checking” is another possible approach but if done manually – it will be very costly and also it is not clear who is authorized and why to make this check… people are always biased …