Asosiy oqim ommaviy axborot vositalari imkon qadar ko'proq odamlar uchun imkon qadar dolzarb bo'lishga intiladi, chunki ko'proq tomoshabin ko'proq pul demakdir. Bunning qasddan bo'lmagan, lekin kutilgan oqibati haqiqatga nisbatan bir xil nigilizmdir.

Mainstream media aims to be as relevant as possible to as many people as possible for the simple reason that more viewers mean more money. The not-so-unintentional consequence of this is a kind of nihilism about the truth.

Haqiqat, ochiq aytganda, CNN, Fox News yoki New York Times tahririyat kengashi uchun unchalik qiziq emas. Bunday nashrlar o‘zlarini shunchaki “bahs-munozarani rivojlantirish” va masalaning “barcha tomonlarini yoritish” bilan cheklab qo‘yishdi. Lekin barcha masalalarning ham bir necha tomoni yo‘q va barcha mavzular cheksiz bahs-munozarani talab qilmaydi. Ba’zi masalalar osongina hal etiladi yoki sifatli tadqiqot va tahlil orqali qoniqarli tarzda yechim topishi mumkin. Lekin bir qancha kelishilgan mavzulardan tashqari, asosiy oqim ommaviy axborot vositalari yechimga kelishning oldini olishga harakat qiladi. Buni ular eng noto‘g‘ri xabardor, g‘arazli va irrational fikrli ovozlarni kuchaytirish orqali qiladilar.

The truth is not something CNN, Fox News, or the New York Times editorial board are really interested in, frankly. Outlets such as these have relegated themselves to merely “fostering debate” and covering “all sides of an issue.” But not all issues have multiple sides and not all matters require endless debate. Some issues are easily resolved or can be satisfactorily addressed through some quality research and analysis. But outside a handful of topics of consensus, the mainstream media tries its best to avoid resolution. It does this by amplifying the most misinformed, biased, and irrationally opinionated voices.

Qurollar bo‘yicha "munozara" AQShda yangiliklar siklida har besh-olti haftada takrorlanib turadi. Barcha ko‘rinishlarga qaramay, qurolli zo‘ravonlik, qotillik darajalari, ommaviy otishmalar va boshqalar haqida har bir kishi bilishi kerak bo‘lgan asosiy savollarning ba’zilariga aniq javoblar mavjud. Agar hozir javoblarimiz bo‘lmasa ham, bu savollarga ilmiy va oqilona yo‘l bilan javob topish uchun tadqiqot usullari mavjud. Masalaning haqiqatini samimiy izlayotgan har kim bu usullarga tayanib, mustahkam javoblarni izlashni xohlaydi. O‘zining barcha resurslari bilan ommaviy axborot vositalari bunday tadqiqotlarni o‘tkazishi yoki bu ishni qila oladiganlarga imkon yaratishi, so‘ngra natijalarni keng tarqatishi kerak. Agar natijalar hali ham noaniq bo‘lsa, unda kamida bu haqdagi suhbat xabardor bo‘lgan holda olib boriladi.

Consider the gun “debate” that crops up every 5 to 6 weeks in the news cycle in the US. Despite all appearances, there are clear answers to some of the fundamental questions everyone should have about gun violence, homicide rates, mass shootings, etc., and even if we don’t have answers now, at least there are research methodologies that can be pursued in a rational, scientific way to address those questions. Anyone who is sincerely interested in the truth of the matter would want to follow those methodologies in seeking robust answers. With all its resources, the mainstream media should be responsible for conducting such research and/or enabling those who can do so, and then disseminate the results far and wide. And if the results are still ambiguous, then at least the pursuant conversation would be an informed one.

Lekin media bunga qiziqmaydi. Chunki ular haqiqatga emas, tomoshabinlar va o‘quvchilar soniga qiziqadi, bu esa eng past umumiy darajaga moslashishni anglatadi. Qo‘shma Shtatlardagi savodxonlik va ta’lim, ayniqsa mantiqiy tahlil, fan va boshqa sohalar bo‘yicha ahvol esa juda og‘ir, shuning uchun bu umumiy daraja haqiqatan ham juda past.

But that is not what the media is interested in. Because they are not interested in the truth. They are interested in viewership/readership and that means catering to the lowest common denominator. And given the abysmal state of literacy and education in the US — especially when it comes to logical analysis, science, etc. — that common denominator is quite low indeed.