|
fool of sound posted:In any case, the primer explicitly talks about the importance of identifying the nature of mediation and how it is distorting the presented information. It talks about it, but is rather under cut by the assumption that things were better in the past and that the internet media in general has lead to a decline in media competency due to the proliferation of view points that are false and the apparent "necessity" of traditional media concerns keeping pace with them. This leads into the idea that journalists are able to find truth, publish it and have an interest in it. Or at the very least that they had that interest once upon a time. This is not borne out by looking at the sheer amount of lies, half truths, ad copy disguised as facts and so on that existed long before the advent of the internet.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:You have correctly identified why it is inherently good. But that isn't inherently good. Let's say that I am building a people thresher, which is like a combine harvester but for people, and want to make it the most efficient people thresher it can be. I look at the best and most effective information to build something that is truly awful, and that people have great difficulty in avoiding and getting killed by. Is the truth, in this instance, an inherent good? Because it allowed me to build a machine that is at the upmost effectiveness for killing people? Jarmak posted:This is shockingly authoritarian. Human beings have agency, by denying them true information and feeding them lies you are taking away their basic agency. Controlling information in this manner goes beyond controlling people, it takes away their right to even know they're being controlled. If human beings only have agency if they have true information then no human being has ever had agency. We can be fairly close to bits and pieces of info, but we are never going to have a completely correct read on something because we cannot escape the context within which we see and observe things. If we were back in Viking Era Norway and I saw an ash tree I would simply know that it is a type of tree. Whereas a pious follower of the Gods may see it as a link back to a divine progenitor. Control of information exists throughout every system that we exist within, in some way. From birth onward we exist inside of a context that is not objective, but caused by systems. This means that we cannot see outside of our own contexts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Dude wtf why would you even try and use this as an example for anything, there are tons of analogies that would have worked and you went with wanting to make a loving death machine. Let alone this being a goddamn strawman argument its stupid as poo poo. Sorry, I am trying to say that "if something can be used for bad ends can it be an inherent good". I just thought I'd use a purposefully daft story so that it doesn't touch on something anyone would actually do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:No you made an argument that is inherently something used to make others agree with you based on emotions and fear of being attacked. Its inherently the exact problem that the OP is saying, that pushing ideology and use of bad faith arguments is one of the biggest issues that we currently are seeing in social media and other parts of the web. You intentionally choose something that was done in a way that will result in people agreeing with the point your attempting to make not by you being correct, but because your argument is intentionally flawed in order to produce the result you want. Sincerely, it isn't. I am trying to make a point that something being true doesn't mean it can't be used for bad ends, and thought I'd use an over the top example. It's not a metaphor for the US healthcare system as some people in my PM's have asked, it's just a silly over the top example of how "If you just want something to be efficient that does not make it good". That and, as mentioned previously, I don't think intrinsic goods should be able to lead to bad things. Though this is interesting. Do you think I set out with the intention of creating this amount of furor over this? I am in no way smart enough to try and be deceptive. Herstory Begins Now posted:If you have to wrestle it into 'but what if I build a human thresher using Truth?' to come up with a counter argument then you're basically conceding everything up to that absurd point. And even then idk what a hypothetical people thresher would even have to do with truth as it pertains to media literacy. It was intended to be over the top . I thought that would mean people could see it as an example that doesn't need copious amounts of "well where is your source for this". By making it a purely theoretical, and purely daft, question we would hopefully avoid people going "oh but how would that work in the real world". Instead it appears as if I made a big mistake using this and I am very sorry for that. fool of sound posted:Generally if people have decided that they are opposed to truth that is deleterious to their ideology they should probably stay out of this thread and preferably subforum. I'm not opposed to truth in any way. I am just unsure if it exists because everything seems to be argued about all the time. You'd hope that there is one truth that can be grasped and understood, instead it is a multiplicity and that is just very very disheartening. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That just means that nothing can be intrinsically good Yeah, pretty much? How can something be intrinsically good if it leads to bad things? Anyway, media stuff: The idea that media in the past was more trustworthy or less sensationalised or even more truthful does not seem to be accurate in my opinion. A prime example would be something like The Hillsborough Disaster. A case where following a tragedy large amounts of people in the media were unwilling to look for the truth and were more than happy to go along with things said by people in power. It took a push not by the media but by people on the ground in order to reject the lies seen there. This happened 32 years ago and this level of contempt for facts and truth seems to be just as prevalent then as now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The point of the OP is not that media used to be better, it's that the business landscape surrounding it is different and how people relate to media has radically changed, and that changes the nature of how and why bad information reaches people. Is it okay to agree and disagree? The business relationship has not altered hugely due to the new technology, but I'd say that the way people relate to media has. The reason I say the business relationship hasn't changed that much is because the fundamental reason for most media in terms of things like Newspapers, TV, radio etc has been to generate profit. The excuses as to why you can pay Opinion writers so much and actual journalists so little has changed, but you could argue that the essential condition hasn't fundamentally altered. As regards how people relate to the media though, you are absolutely right on that. I don't want to ignore what you've both written, but also don't want to make this a "seek therapy" thread. Thank you though!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
But isn't this, whats the opposite of reductive, adductive? Ragebait and clickbait have always existed as part of the media ecosystem, however their relationship towards readers or listeners has altered. Take for instance, the Daily Mail. Often you will find no end of articles inside of it talking about how the poor, the dispossessed and the downtrodden are feckless wastrels spending your hard earned money. Now it's different from ragebait as you are using it because it is instead aimed at reinforcing the biases of someone who has already bought the paper but how different is it in practical terms? To go back to Hillsborough, The Sun newspaper printed a massive headline saying "THE TRUTH" where it essentially called everyone in Liverpool who attended the match a grave robber who pisses on police. Is that not rage bait? Is "THE TRUTH" not purchase bait? Maximising the amount of people who buy your newspaper or listen/watch your show has always been the end point of every single media enterprise and, therefore, clickbait and its ancestors have always been with us. It's important to note that this is not a good thing. It's awful and lovely and anything that prioritizes it should be condemned. However I think that it is not a new phenomenon and should be consider as part of an evolutionary practice as opposed to revolutionary one. fool of sound posted:The driving factor being profit motive is obviously true but also uselessly reductionist. The way media companies generate revenue and the sorts of completion they have to deal with have changed quite rapidly and traditional outlets have struggled to adapt to the new marketplace. Could you argue that the "new" marketplace is simply the same one with new opponents, using the same things that media traditionally used? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i'm pretty sure it was foucault who said "beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" I think that's Pravin Lal from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Their relationship to readers/listeners has altered... so then wouldn't the media landscape and business relationship be different? You seem to be making a very narrow argument which misses the forest for the trees. Not especially. It's arguing that the relationship of "get the most eyes on product" has simply shifted emphasis from an internal audience (keep the readers reading) to an external one as well (keep the readers reading and try and entice new readers). I'd say it's important because it shows how little has truly changed. The information presented in the initial set of posts is still very correct, but we should be mindful that these are problems have existed longer than most people in this thread have been alive. It implies that the problem is not simply about changing modes of media consumption (though that might bleed into it) but about how "media" exists in the first place. It also, hopefully, puts paid to the idea of any grand difference between older media ecosystems and new ones. It has simply been brought into starker contrast because older media concerns attempt to define themselves as fundamentally different to newer ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:You're contradicting yourself. You admit the relationship has changed, then immediately say very little has truly changed and we shouldn't focus on that change. Shifted emphasis is the bit that I am attempting to communicate. One was still present in the other, just as the other one is present now. The emphasis as to which is the more vital may have shifted, but the overall idea has not. That's why I emphasized "as well" and "shifted". The continuity is important. Media literacy is, I would contend, far harder if you treat media as not having a certain amount of continuity across it's historic time periods. Otherwise we start declaring that something is wholly new and unconnected from anything, instead of something that we have seen something similar before. Even if we cannot use the past to come up with methods to resolve it I still think that treating new media as outgrowths and not as hard breaks is useful. We can hopefully look at how other people approached media in their own time periods instead of declaring that "that was then, this is now". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:literally nobody is doing that, what are you talking about. all anyone is saying is that as the media landscape has changed because of things like social media and the internet, current iterations of consistent problems have also changed. it's not a binary from 'everything is the same' and 'nothing is the same' - you can have both change and continuity. i'm sorry but is this some sort of bit? is this going to be the next fischmech? Allow me to quote the first paragraph of the first post of this thread: fool of sound posted:Over the last decade the internet has increasingly morphed, twisting itself around the weighty presence of rapidly expanding content aggregators and social media and, with the ease of access provided by these services, the societies of the developed world are increasingly online. Traditional media sources have been forced to adapt to this new environment and worse, have been forced to compete with new breeds of competitors suddenly made viable thanks to websites driven by user generated content. Together, these changes have transformed the already hectic news cycle into a constant deluge and, coupled with ever falling standards, deliberate misinformation, and an appalling lack of media literacy, it is increasingly difficult to assemble an accurate picture of any major news story. Can you not see how this could be read, especially the bolded bits, as delineating the current situation of media literacy and disinformation from historic ones? I am not the next fishmech, but I am trying to talk about stuff and it's very sad that I am apparently so bad at it that I can seem to say anything properly. I think it's probably best that I stop posting. Thank you all for your time and I am sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:With the greatest possible respect, could you please clarify who the gently caress could possibly qualify as a "worthy victim" of genocide? And please let me know if I'm confused somewhere because I just got home from watching the Padres win a game of baseball so I'm probably not operating on all cylinders. Worthy victims would be something like if an "enemy" or antagonist state was committing ethnic cleansing there would be a lot of anger directed at them because all people are worth looking after and human life has value and how dare this be done. Unworthy victims would be if you had the ethnic cleansing being done by a "friendly" or co-operative state. Same situation, same participants etc, but now it becomes "a complex local issue that we must examine carefully before coming to any conclusions". The people are still victimised in both instances, but the framing of why and what should be done is very different. Bear in mind I am referring to these categories based only on what I have read in this thread, but attempting to clarify what other participants are saying, not to take a stand on them. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Going back a bit, in response to the "WaPo is owned by an oligarch" thing, interestingly enough Washington Post actually does quite a remarkable job of not giving Bezos preferential treatment. Do you think that stuff like the below opinion piece is an example of "not giving our owner preferential treatment"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/09/think-twice-before-changing-tax-rules-soak-billionaires/ Do you also believe that "oh I have no actual say in what happens, I merely own a controlling stake and have no idea what is occurring" is accurate? If you do believe this, if you honest to God believe that there is more context or a greater understanding or something else I would dearly love to hear it. I'd love to live in a world where the person who owns the newspaper doesn't, even indirectly, have influence over what it publishes. I get the feeling that "this is a larger organisation" interacts a lot with "and hence is more trustworthy". I am not sure that this is an accurate read, not least because different aspects of a thing can be wrong and create problems. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A war of unfalsifiable declarations of prior ideological commitments immune to criticism isn’t compatible with good faith discussion. How is it unfalsifiable? Surely you can check and compare certain actions or expressed opinions vs what the person says they believe?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2021 09:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Josef you were the other person advocating for Yylqya’s position on the first page of the thread. The fos quote above was in response to you after ytlaya stopped engaging. It may benefit you to click on it and remind yourself how it went the last time around. I wasn't advocating for it. I didn't disagree with a small section about how I think the idea of there being a hard break between "legacy" media stuff and "current" media stuff is not absolutely obvious. I explained myself poorly, that I'll certainly grant, but I don't think acting smug about it is edifying. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:If Bob believes that the way people engage with and interpret information depends solely on the assumptions and beliefs they hold about the world, and that those assumptions and beliefs are basically immovable objects (i.e. cannot be dislodged no matter what contradictory evidence is shown), and that when they share information with others they do it to receive validation from allies and get a reaction from enemies, then there's really no reason for Bob to participate in a debate forum, IMHO. But he can believe that both are true. It can be the belief that something can be both an honest attempt to inform people about something and also a way to gain acclaim with people you respect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:It's ironic that they bring up Andrew Wakefield in there given he is a man whose conspiracy theory only gained traction thanks to the media giving it a continuous spot light. Endless interviews with parents parents who blamed vaccines for their children developing autism at the normal age for symptoms to appear, built an extremely effective propaganda platform for Wakefield. Yep. It's fascinating as well that so many of the "we just print stories" media over here kept propping him up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 21:54
|
|