|
we also live in a society which recognizes the existence of objective truth and uses that recognition to structure ... pretty much everything. if you, personally, don't believe in truth (which is a valid opinion!) thats fine, but good luck trying to defend yourself in court, or hold a job, or have a conversation.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted: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). this is essentially gibberish. if you reduce everything to 'information is just information, context doesn't matter' then sure, there are no differences between now, and, say, the 1800s, but for the rest of us living in the real world there have been significant changes in the media environment over the last twenty years with the advent of things like 'the internet' and 'social media'. i don't know why you're incapable of recognizing that many things have changed, and just because problems existed in previous iterations of the media ecosystem and problems currently exist doesn't mean that those problems are the same thing. if you aren't capable of recognizing that then i genuinely don't know what to say. your extremely rigid worldview in which you apparently create your own definitions for terms and then rigidly cling to them while arguing with everyone else is super old. like, the entire OP is essentially saying 'be careful of the sources you're reading, do some deeper research, and be aware people approach things through their own framing and its generally good to check what you're reading against common sense advice about media' - and yes this has always been true, of literally the entirety of human history, but in now, with this iteration of the media world - where things like the internet and social media exist - there are different challenges. it's like if i said to you 'hey cars are getting faster these days, make sure you're extra careful when you cross the street' and you replied 'well people have ALWAYS been at risk from being struck by a [car, buggy, tireme, chariot] so your warning makes no sense!' Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:snip i don't think its the job of the op (or anyone on the internet) to try to convince people to abandon their ideological frameworks, but there's still value in basic media criticism, even if you're only applying to sort between sources which fervently argue how wonderfully the ugyhur concentration camps are and everybody can't wait to go. the existence of further challenges doesn't preclude the original effort - or the benefit of that effort. also, ideological frameworks change and evolve, particularly in a place like this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted: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". 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?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:21
|
|