|
Nothing is true; everything is permitted. In Australia, the truism 'the Narrative' informs the way many of us get our news, fake, bad journalism or otherwise. We've got the worst combination of centralized media ownership and swinging door lobbies. The same faces around different directorial boards, etc. It was coined for the then seemingly extraordinary control of the 24hr cycle by the Howard reign from the late 90's to the late 00's, and only started breaking down because neoliberal policy's results had no political outlet strong enough to disrupt it. Now it's in full disruption, and the money pit that journalism has become makes the Narrative more dangerous because there is no journalistic will to contest it, as there was once upon a time. I'd even claim we were post-fact before post-fact was a thing. Howard was all about post-fact. His successors are merely refining the technique, and they're not terribly good at it. FAU, I found your proposition of teaching media literacy very appealing, but would never happen here, the right wing are on to such plans and fight their culture wars more successfully on the curriculum than the US Midwest - which is the very place that needs that literacy most and will never get it anyway. So, great idea, shame about the execution. Unless civilization itself recognizes the danger, I fail to see why any ideologue would permit such a limitation. Astroturfing remains a clear and present danger, and in combination with 24hr fake news, done well, could be devastating. The problem of combatting that is who wants to read an in-depth investigation by a journalist of other journalists or think tank ideologues? It might stroke the right nerve of a liberal like myself but the mass of people just don't care about that stuff. That's the biggest problem, most people don't care about the fakeness of fake news anyway.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Our tabloids are slightly more truthful than that, they specialize in the eye-catching headline and picture and then the weasel words on page 5. The Murdoch model basically.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
In Sydney we have a man, his wife and a dog who apparently are the directors of the Sydney Institute. He wages a one-man war against the public broadcaster and refuses to disclose who funds his "institute". These things are more of a continuum than distinct states. For instance we have the wonderfully-named Institute of Public Affairs who are the premier right wing think-tank. Their proclamations are usually news somewhere, their members often get onto the public broadcaster for balance. Lately they're the tool for developing Liberal party policy because the party is incapable of any ideas of its own. Seriously, they took an IPA list of 100 wants and tried to implement most of them. They're still trying to. One of their stars went on to become the most useless head of the Human Rights Commission and recently got parachuted into a safe Liberal seat and promptly attacked the HRC for being useless. That's how it's done here. So it's more than just fake news for fake news sake. It's about stepping stones to power.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:She was not toeing the government line and conveniently is cut off by pure, fresh-squeezed prolefeed. It's really spooky, like something you see in a movie taking the show-don't-tell approach to signifying "this is a dystopia". I wonder how this would have gone if they had the NSA director saying the Patriot Act is all hunky-dory. No, that's just the lazy media making an equivalency between political news they can't be bothered explaining with OH GOD JUSTIN BIEBER GOT ARRESTED. Ironically, if you watch the whole episode of LWT you'd get more of an education about the NSA and Snowden than the mainstream media ever have or are likely to bother to give you. Like Oliver says, if the only thing that gets people thinking about actual privacy from international surveillance is dick-pics then that's the baseline that is needed to engage them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:It got somewhat glossed over last page, but regarding supermarket tabloids like the Enquirer and such, what is saving their asses from getting sued out of this world for libel? As I said, the rest of the article is on page 5 and glosses the headline by sticking to facts and "allegedly". So if they are sued, they can say that the story had "the appearance" of facts. Doesn't always work but the idea is to make a trial look harder and more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:30
|
|