 Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | reply to amigo_boy
Re: WGAE: Internet As Primary News Source Threatens Quality, Job 20 years? It's been a lot longer than that. Hearst was a master. The media in general has been propagandizing since before our founding. The difference is that there is no monopoly of thought in media any more. No longer are CBS, NBC, ABC and major city newspapers the only source of news. Everyone now has access to a platform to spout their flavor of propaganda and access to a platform unfiltered by biased editorial boards.
Things to get pitchforking about are nothing new. The difference is people are FINALLY becoming aware of the titanic scale of how f*cked the government is and how never day goes by that the government doesn't screw us over. The latest screw over I'm getting come next week.
»www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s···40.story
The level of local, state and federal government greed and corruption we are seeing now is what is sensational, not the reporting of it. This level of government run amuck doesn't require any embellishment. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Z80: The latest screw over I'm getting come next week. » www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s···40.storyThe level of local, state and federal government greed and corruption we are seeing now is what is sensational, not the reporting of it. This level of government run amuck doesn't require any embellishment. That is outrageous.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Z80
said by Z80:20 years? It's been a lot longer than that. Hearst was a master. The media in general has been propagandizing since before our founding. The difference is that there is no monopoly of thought in media any more. No longer are CBS, NBC, ABC and major city newspapers the only source of news. Everyone now has access to a platform to spout their flavor of propaganda and access to a platform unfiltered by biased editorial boards. Things to get pitchforking about are nothing new. The difference is people are FINALLY becoming aware of the titanic scale of how f*cked the government is and how never day goes by that the government doesn't screw us over. The latest screw over I'm getting come next week. » www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s···40.storyThe level of local, state and federal government greed and corruption we are seeing now is what is sensational, not the reporting of it. This level of government run amuck doesn't require any embellishment. you provide the pictures, I'll provide the war.
anyway lots the loss of print has been that people want news Now, they dont want to wait for it to bake over night at the printing press. this course was started by satellite powered news where events could be sent real time from anywhere to anywhere at merely the speed of light.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | reply to Romney2012
It typical Sacramento theft. And now we are seeing Sacramento style politics at work in Washington. The entire nation has this level of corruption and thievery to look forward to if they are not already experiencing it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Z80
My point is that you cited the LA Times, not Bruiser LaRue's Blawg.
I agree with you that the internet is a huge shift of political power, allowing individuals to easily discuss current events, or start their own "news" (predominantly editorial) portal if they feel their views are underrepresented. That's a huge shift of political power to the people.
But, that's not the same as a dedicated news organization -- even with all its imperfections. The professionalism that comes with trained journalists, experienced editors, etc. Developing years of sources. Spending months developing background before blowing the lid on a scandal.
Mark |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | It's competition that is driving news outlets like the L.A. Times to actually start covering news instead of picking and choosing news that fits its editorial agenda. No longer are they allowed to ignore stories because others will cover it and take the audience. I have no doubt that if this story had happened 10 years ago, hell 5 years ago, they would have ignored it just like they ignored fmr. Gov. Davis' fits of rage and violence toward his staff while assailing Ah-nold daily.
My point is there are no "dedicated news organizations". They're all propagandists steered by editorial opinion. Fact checking takes a back seat to pushing the agenda as it did with Dan RaTHer and CBS, nearly destroying the entire news division. There are independent journalists everywhere, but there are no hard news "organizations". Often those independent journalists when they get a huge scoop are raked over the coals by the propagandizing nearly 'state run' news organizations who should be following up on the stories.
Even now it is difficult to get old media to cover stories that put their buddies in government in a bad light. They will ignore stories (for example the recent ACORN scandal) even when staring them in the face as if they pretend they don't exist it will go away.
Old media is dead and the news oligopoly is dead. I'm glad to see the pitchforkers out in force and I'll run my own B.S. filter instead of having propagandists at the state run or corporate kiss ass media do it. Of course new media doesn't bode well for governments, "community" groups and corporations who abuse power and engage in unprecedented levels of greed and corruption. They won't be able to do anything without someone finding out and sooner raTHer than later. That is good too. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Z80:It's competition that is driving news outlets like the L.A. Times to actually start covering news instead of picking and choosing news that fits its editorial agenda. I don't disagree with that. It could also be driven by the ease with which individuals can communicate and discuss what's not being reported.
"golf/liam/tk's" (I forget which one he was for this thread) posting concerned financial hardship which traditional media is struggling with.
As I said in my reply to him, I think that's a problem (although, no easy solution comes to mind). That doesn't mean I disagree with you about the usefulness of 20 million blawgs, or pseudo-news web sites. Just that it could be a problem when more professional, traditional news can't compete against Bruiser LaRue who writes "news" after his day job, and pulls in $500 a month in banner advertising.
The benefits you refer to of a more populist, democratic information medium also come with a downside too. When the populist consumers of news believe the latest "truther" story from Bruiser LaRue, and the mainstream media doesn't report it, that tends to confirm to the "truthers" that the mainstream media "just doesn't get it."
I see this as similar to the division between populist democracy and deliberative/representative democracy. For example, the way Senators were appointed by state legislatures until 1913 when they became popularly elected. That was a benefit to the populace. But, Senators driven by populism isn't such a great thing compared to their intended role to be protected from it, so they could be a more deliberative body (and reject whatever animated the mob today, like turning Jews into bars of soap).
I see positives and negatives to Internet-driven changes to how we get our information. I think it would be bad if the more deliberative, professional, expensive organizations went out of business. And, I have mixed feelings about them being driven exclusively by whatever the mob wants to hear (pandering).
But, none of the above is meant to say that an ivory-tower, cloistered news organization isn't without its downsides too.
Mark |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | There will always be birther type nuts out there like the 9-11 conspiracy nuts claiming Bush orchestrated the whole thing to invade Iraq. And the old media will report the nutty claims IF they fit the agenda (Dan RaTHer for example). The media "gets" what their editorial boards want people to "get" whether accurate or not.
I don't think people are running to the blogs or news aggregators like Drudge because they are free. I think they run to the blogs because they can't get the whole story from old media.
Where there is smoke there is fire and old media takes the batteries out of the detectors. The mob wants the truth and old media won't give it to them. The mob have pretty good B.S. detectors and can filter out birther type nuts but they want to hear the case and decide for themselves instead of government and their propagandists in media deciding it for them. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Z80:The mob wants the truth and old media won't give it to them. The mob have pretty good B.S. detectors and can filter out birther type nuts .... I don't place the same faith in the fickleness of the mob. The reference to "truthers" was just an extreme example. But, that mindset is a matter of degrees. It's a natural human tendency to want to believe what you want to believe.
An example is the recent financial/credit bubble. The mob didn't want to hear that bad times were coming. The party was going so swell! The popularity-driven media didn't report it.
You'll point to some blawgs that reported it to their specialized audience (investors, etc.). But, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority didn't want to hear it -- and they had eager, popularity-driven "news" sources to tell them what their itching ears wanted to hear.
That's how a mob mindset works. If the mainstream news had reported the "real news" about the bubble, they would have been accused of being anti-Bush. Just another example of "the liberal media." Since the mainstream media didn't report it, then it's proof of "editorial corruption."
Populism works that way. Rationalize everything because it didn't fit what one subset of the mob felt was "popular," therefore the media isn't reporting "what the people really want to hear." In fact, the mainstream media did report what the people wanted to hear ("see no evil, speak no evil."). If the mainstream media reported the evil (how the economy was built on a house of cards), they would have been accused of tearing down Bush's tremendous economic achievements.
That's how populism (the mob) works. It's not really democratic. It's just who can scream the loudest. A group is convinced that their view is the popular one as evidenced by how loud (passionate) they are. Selectively applying how great the mob's BS detectors are when it comes to 20 million blawgs -- while at the same time unable to cope with corruption/bias in mainstream news.
IMO, the above doesn't lead to quality news.
I'm a little concerned that traditional news is being forced to cater more to populism, reducing their news to editorials that produce the most banner-ad hits. As bad as traditional news has been in its own peculiar way, I'm not naive enough to believe things can't get worse.
Having said that, I'm not defending traditional news organizations. I agree that autonomy (removal from market-driven forces) can (and does) lead to corruption.
I just think they're a good counterbalance to popularity-driven "news," where content is driven by the most passionate (not necessarily the most objective). And, the only feasible way for expensive, in-depth journalism to occur.
Mark |
|
