Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Lightning Knight posted:

A debate was brought up in US NEWS we had one time in the thunderdome, about the way RT etc. is perceived as inherently illegitimate propaganda versus the way people will grant the assumption of good faith or at least benefit of the doubt to an outlet like Bloomberg, and I think it�s a discussion worth having here.

I wasn't bringing it up in the sense of it being something that there should be a discussion about, I think it's pretty straightforward that letting people post propaganda in the news thread is a bad idea on a whole bunch of levels and I'm confused and concerned how you can equate that with actual media sources that do meaningfully give a poo poo about journalistic standards (even if only because they want to win pulitzers). No one is claiming that the New Yorker, Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, Atlantic etc. are without any bias, but they are fundamentally different on almost every significant level from the foreign equivalents of Voice of America.

Like this isn't some vaccuum where all 'journalists' are equal. There are a ton of journalism departments in the country that give out prestigious awards for exceptional reporting and you can look at who is winning awards and for what and get a very real feel for whether or not a publication is doing actual investigative reporting. It seems like you think anything related to a corporation is inherently evil, but a ton of vitally important, extremely hard hitting reporting goes on with the full backing and investment and encouragement of corporations. If you think that all jouranlism is intrinsically corrupted by the mere association with anyone who isn't perfectly objective, go look up what journalism is getting awards and read the pieces that are getting recognized.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2019 16:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 01:22

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

If I had to choose between Sputnik, RW talk radio, I'd just sit in silence with my thoughts or play a podcast on my phone speaker ffs.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2019 14:38

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

OwlFancier posted:

When you set out to present information with the intent of changing someone's mind about something, generally as part of a coherent set of information designed to elicit buy in to a particular worldview.

i.e yes, everything that a media outlet puts out, because there's an editor in charge and they set the ideological limits of the outlet according to their preferences.

It doesn't include all information because it's possible to convey information more unthinkingly or not significantly as part of a coherent effort to build a worldview but that form of information transmission would be more on an individual level or possibly scientific, again not within the space occupied by media outlets.

Signfiicantly this definition of propaganda does not discriminate between things you made up and things you think are true, because that's irrelevant. The point is that you are in both cases simply giving people information intended to occupy their need for a coherent understanding of the world, with the intent of assuring their loyalty to your publication or cause.

Sometimes things with a factual basis are the most effective method of doing that, sometimes outright lies are, sometimes a mixture of both, with the facts giving cover to the lies. Sometimes if you're really lucky you can end up in a situation where the facts and the lies are produced by different institutions but which all contribute to the same media environment and general cultural tone, allowing a sort of superficial ideological divergence without compromising the fundamentals. The US is very good at this whereby its political environment is very effectively restricted to two flavours of liberalism with varying levels of racism and bible thumping mixed in. Note that I do not specify that this is intentional, I'd probably describe it as being more like an emergent class interest created by the nature of the US media than a conscious effort set out by a particular individual.

In either case I would suggest the answer is cynicism. Some are lying to you, some are selectively feeding you useful truths. None are actually good for the world at large.

This is probably informed specifically by my being from the UK where the entire press is either rabidly right wing or wet fart liberal, while the primary political opposition is further left than any of the media. This necessitates media cynicism because you cannot simultaneously believe the press is good and be politically active on the left, because they are all hostile to you. Having more people like the media and their output would be flat out a bad thing for me and where I live. I would suggest the same is true for most places on the earth.

You are completely missing the point (and concept) of propaganda

Meliarion posted:

You might find this academic report that was done on the press's attitudes towards Jeremy Corbin and the Labour party helpful in understanding why British people might view the press cynically.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn

I don't think anyone anywhere on these forums has said 'don't be cynical about the press.' People are emphasizing that the press having a bias is significantly different from outlets whose raison-d'etre is entirely propaganda dissemination.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 5, 2019

# ¿ Jan 5, 2019 19:46

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Like if you're at the point where you're questioning if there are objective facts you need to step back for a moment and regain some perspective.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2019 20:23

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

GoluboiOgon posted:

unlike people in the west, who are born into this environment and slowly absorb it, russians of that generation were thrust into the western world of marketing suddenly, and have a much better grasp of what it actually entails than the author of that piece. the author seems to think that surkov is the first person to write this down, but his book seems to be very strongly linked to victor pelevin's book "generation P", which was heavily influenced by marshall mcluhan (and buddhism).

There's another component to this specifically for those who grew up in Soviet times in the Eastern Bloc countries where the public perception of state media was so critical that reading between the lines was essentially an entire art form that people had systematized. Glowing praise meant something didn't fail, silence on a subject meant it was a disaster, results presented as neutral were a failure, etc. Often the details that were missing told the real story. It's striking to talk to older Russians about how they habitually read the news and it's basically the same thing as the information nihilism that Owlfancier is rambling towards, except much more succintly. In an environment where there was largely a monopoly on information and news, that level of skepticism made a lot of sense

# ¿ Jan 5, 2019 20:40

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

OwlFancier posted:

It makes just as much sense in an an environment where there is an ideological monopoly.

That's the thing, you don't need to actively suppress views to effectively censor them, you can simply flood the environment with superficial differences of opinion which all share the same fundamental acceptances of the key things you want. It is also possible for this to happen without conscious direction though I would suggest that the US's, and other countries' political histories in the 20th century have had a major effect with the active censorship of socialist ideas creating a media culture hostile to them, though the existence of the media as profit driven and directed by a wealthy class is also a factor.

This is the key thing. Totalitarian suppression of views is not necessary. And neither is a top down direction of propaganda. You can end up maintaining a critical mass of ideological support by simply drowning out the alternatives under weight of information availability.

You completely miss the part that investigative journalism is a huge thing that massively impacts the world. You seem to expect journalism to be all things to all people and to be the instrument of change. It influences change and public opinion, but by nature it isn't going to be an effective actor, particularly not while maintaining any relative independence.

I think you also have a specifically wrong belief about how journalism interacts historically with economics. Publicizing labor abuses is one of the absolute core subjects in investigative journalism and that is where journalists as individuals have by far the most profound impact on the world. From the Foxconn scandals to the early shitstorm around Nike's labor practices to more recently outing the SEAsian shrimp production using slave labor to a century of condemnation of meat packing plants, garment manufacturing conditions, miner safety, etc. journalism has been profoundly at odds with economic forces. Similarly with the other pole of investigative, journalism govt corruption and misuse of power, access journalism is a thing, but the great majority of journalists would burn almost any potential source for a solid, on-the-record career making story.

The idea that journalism exists only to suckoff the rich and powerful is just at odds with basically the entire history of journalism. Piers Morgans and Maggie Habermans will always exist, but there's a reason why they're treated with disdain by rest of their profession.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2019 20:57

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

OwlFancier posted:

And has it gotten us very far, do you think?

I already said that yes, they will report on the worst excesses of the system they propgate, but they will equally turn vehemently against any attempt to usurp that system. This is part of the problem. This is why they are so effective an obstacle. They say on the one hand that terrible things are happening, but on the other work hard to obfuscate any systemic, left wing critique of why they happen.

Do you not think this contradiction is a problem? Do you not think that perhaps the contradiction is fuel for all the far right stuff I assume you dislike? When you have a press that tells you terrible things are happening but cannot offer you a coherent explanation for why, and equally can have a section of itself, by virtue of private ownership, more than willing to voice the extreme right answer to why the world is hosed, do you not think this represents a systemic problem with the press and how it affects society?

It is terrible that people die hungry or sick, but UBI or medicare for all or a 15 dollar minimum wage are unworkable programs, and also theyr'e socialism and socialism is worse than hitler and it's actually the fault of the drat immigrants and that's why we need to invade syria. These are your three flavours of content produced by the US media and most media in the west. They at best identify problems, in the middle rail against the left solution, and on the right they promote the vilest solutions. But it's all part of the system. It is a holistic thing. They're all organized the same way, and they cannot deviate from that because what wealthy and powerful institution is going to advocate for things that threaten itself?

It doesn't matter what individual journalists might want, they can't change the way their industry operates. They won't change the way the media as a whole affects society. It doesn't matter how many reports on bad things they put out because they will be followed up with a stifling of the left and a fostering of the right, ever and always. It's a three hit combo. You say society is rotten, you paint the good solutions as wrong in some way, morally or practically, and you offer people the far right line that acknowledges the rot in society and gives the wrong solution.

You may not do it consciously but that is the effect. It is not all done by the same company, but it is all done by the same mode of organization. Which is wealthy private or state owned media with a remit to seek profit and readership. This can cover all positions but the left wing one quite effectively, because the democratic left wing position is opposed to the wealthy privately owned model, and the state ownership model is similarly oligarchic due to the nature of it being controlled by representative democracies which themselves are generally steeped in the wealth and privilege of the political class which makes it makes it inherently hard for a left wing government to maintain control of, and it becomes a very effective instrument in the hands of a right wing one.

I don't know how a collectively owned media might work out because it'd have to be a massive structural break from the normal hierarchical organization I think. It's unknown enough that I couldn't venture a view on it. With the british labour party's ideas about transferring some things to collective or municipal ownership though it might possibly be an option we could see in the future.

So this is just an emotional feeling that you have about journalism and not something actually grounded in reality, thanks for clarifying.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2019 00:25

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

OwlFancier posted:

Well, yeah Russia is a turbocapitalist hellhole why would they be? I don't recall suggesting that? The analysis that RT is primarily a tool aimed at disrupting the political landscape of other countries is entirely correct and to that end they can of course use anything, including socialists to do that. They'll give air to anything if they think it'll cause political ruckus somewhere else.

Look if you're not even going to bother to engage with what I'm saying what's the point in responding?

You're not even making any provable claims in either direction, you're just expounding your pet theory of how journalism works without grounding it in literally any examples of actual journalism, much less any of the actual discussion of this stuff that goes on inside of journalism as a field. Moreover you're neglecting that any leftist journalism exists whatsoever so you can make some (frankly absurd) point that 100% of journalism serves a far-right purpose.

If you want to propose a theoretical and novel interpretation back it up with real world examples, especially for your most extreme claims.

Besides, you're just saying it's all bad and irredeemable and nothing matters.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2019 01:17

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

OwlFancier posted:

I can't speak about foreign language press but the poo poo that comes out of the US looks plenty familiar. If anyone wants to propose a difference in their own press that would be interesting though lacking context I couldn't obviously comment. Cynically though I would be surprised if there are not following trends in many places, the US in particular tends to push the rest of the world towards its own habits.

I would posit the UK as perhaps an end state of the private press model, however, and a useful case study of the state press model with the BBC. If you like those, it might be a good idea to see how it works here, because you could have it to look forward to. If you want to compare and contrast trends in the US press specifically, being something I would very much identify as having similarities, then that would be interesting too.

As someone who has consumed news in 4 languages (5 really, but I forgot most of my Arabic and that was more to be able to consume primary source material), I can assure you that you're looking through a pinhole and thinking you're seeing everything.

The 2 primary take aways are, 1) journalism is absolutely instrumental to basically every subversive movement ever (and if you disagree, please explain why repressive governments kill so drat many journalists) and 2) pretty much every country is wildly skeptical of news sources and the political bias of every publication is absolutely public knowledge.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jan 6, 2019

# ¿ Jan 6, 2019 02:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 01:22

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

idk I found that post fairly straight forward and it accords with how propaganda is understood in political fields. What is your background Helsing?

Btw this convo got relegated here by mods because apparently discussing whether or not state-sponsored propaganda is propaganda doesn't belong in hte news thread. That's why it doesn't really engage with whatever was being talked about previously.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2019 20:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread