> What's missing are leaders (aka media) evaluating and promoting policies based on rationality reasoning rather than what emotional ploys that sell.
Leaders in media have no external incentive to promote rationality. They make money by appealing to their audience, to increase the size and loyalty of that audience.
News is a commercial product. Ratings represent the value of the program to advertisers as a measure of viewership, and the news exists as a way to generate those ratings. No ratings, no advertisers, no news. As with so many other forms of media, you are not the consumer, you're the product (or more specifically, the likelihood of your attention in those all important spaces between the segments.)
Unless you want the state to control everything, how do news organizations make the money they need to put on the broadcasts, if not with ratings? They have to sell something to somebody right? Should the US have a licensing system like they have in Britain?
There are newscasts on PBS but almost nobody watches them (I do, but then I used to work at a small PBS station) and tote bags can only get you so far.
I agree that it is a terrible system, but I literally can't think of a viable alternative. Information is so powerful, I'd say it deserves to be a fourth branch if government, except that it's power would quickly eclipse all others. As bad as Fox News is, I have no expectation that Gov News would be any better. And as long as we have the 1st, we'd still have Fox News anyway.
The best I could think of is tightening the reins through FCC licenses, revoking them for intentional deception (although good luck proving this in a way that can't backfire.)
Leaders in media have no external incentive to promote rationality. They make money by appealing to their audience, to increase the size and loyalty of that audience.
There is no solution.