Close, but not quite. This is "Those people are too propagandized to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them what their sources of information should be."
Putting words in others' mouths is a cheap, dishonest rhetorical trick, and I didn't mean to be doing so. But...
> The American urban-rural divide in the US maps pretty neatly to who is dependent on AM radio for information. US AM radio is a cesspit of disinformation operated by extreme-right-wing billionaires who have found it is remarkably cheap to manage populations, and get them to vote for benefits to billionaires at the direct expense of those voters.
Your words.
> Rural voters are the most valuable target for disinformation campaigns because, by a historical quirk in American electoral politics, their votes count for quite a lot more than urban voters', and because they are more isolated from one another and so easier to keep on track. Urban voters have easier direct, face-to-face contact with one another that makes lies more expensive to sell.
Also your words.
> Rural voters used to vote their interests. Now they vote against their own interests, and for billionaires'.
Also your words.
> Those people are so heavily propagandized at that they now believe and repeat falsehoods.
Also your words.
So, no, you don't call for a Ministry of Truth. But you complain that rural America is being fed lies, which is leads them into voting against their own interest. Therefore... what? Shake your head at their stupidity and leave them there? Or are you going to propose something to help them?
And if you're going to help them, if your analysis of the problem is correct, then you have to stop them from listening to the propaganda somehow. How are you going to do that, since they have now reached the point where they listen to it willingly?
This is what I think the logic of your position forces you to. (Feel free to point out where you diverge from what I expect.)
We did used to have FCC rules that largely prevented the problem without any Ministry of Truth, but the rules were abandoned because billionaires found them inconvenient.
The Fairness Doctrine? That might do it. If people who only get their information from one source get both sides from that source, that might help.
But I suspect that these days, there'd be just a caricature/strawman of the other side, not an honest presentation, and therefore it wouldn't actually help. (And I don't just mean Fox would do it. I could see CNN doing the same, just less blatantly.)
And, those who only want to hear one side can get their "news" online these days. So I don't think it would work. It might help, though.
