|
Zoeb posted:I just want to do the right thing and advocate for the side of good. Yeah that’s a way folks are are targeted to be radicalized. A thought like “I want to protect my community” is turned into racism and bigotry. The most effective way to radicalize folks is to offer them meaning, purpose, and community. Here’s the thing to remember. It’s hard to get a person to just accept a new belief from the outside. It’s much easier to just attach something new to a belief they already have in their head. Or it’s much easier to present the perception that a community one is in all believes a certain thing, and thus that you should.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Yeah, I don’t really have an answer to the problems of journalism funding. Part of the problem is that basically all funding models are potentially corrupting in their own way. The problems with advertiser and government funding, as well as the patronage of a “benevolent” individual rich person, are obvious, but what we’ve surprisingly learned over the past few years is that reader funding can have unhealthy effects too. People sometimes talk about the “audience capture” that afflicts Substack types, where the journalist’s worldview becomes more and more aligned with the worldviews of his readers. People like this are sometimes called “grifters,” and maybe that’s not wrong, but the really horrible thing is that I think most of them aren’t even consciously aware that they’re grifting; people are very good at convincing themselves that something that benefits them financially is morally or factually right. for most of history newspapers were never supposed to be an impartial source of truthful information: they were supposed to be partisan outlets meant to build a community of likeminded people. Alexander Hamilton founded one of the first newspapers in the US explicitly to trash his political opponents. That was just the default state of media for vast majority of US history. So newspapers were ok with losing money so long as it represented the political viewpoints of their sponsors. I think for a brief era spanning from roughly the post-war through to the 90s the nature of media technology (Television) consolidated media "readership" into a few big entities (ABC, NBC, CBS) in the US. Because each station has trying to appeal to like 90% of the population they couldn't be explicit partisan outlets anymore, but has to put out news which is closer to objective reality. It's probably no accident the golden age of investigative journalism (exposing Watergate, My Lai etc) took place around this era. And when you have audiences that big advertisers have no choice but to pay you boatloads of money so media companies had an independent source of funding. But in the age of Twitter/Social media fractured the media landscape again, now any rando on twitter can bot enough accounts to generate a large enough following so long as they market their message towards their niche audience enough. And everyone is back to listening to people who conform to their worldviews, the gatekeepers are all dead and people are getting their news from easily faked twitter screencaps. Even if legitimate journalism does get funding through fining facebook/twitter their audience will probably continue to shrink: for better or worse. Necrobama posted:Would it be too god damned much to ask for to see DV eat more than a token sixer for their consistency in speaking down to other posters as though the simple act of questioning him were a personal offense? I do find it kinda meta that a page or so into the thread the discussion has already shifted to forum drama about DV and Cspam vs DnD round 999999 LOL Typo fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
Typo posted:I do find it kinda meta that a page or so into the thread the discussion has already shifted to forum drama about DV and Cspam vs DnD round 999999 LOL You are responding to a six month old grudgepost from a banned alt account. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are responding to a six month old grudgepost from a banned alt account. Keep my name out of your loving mouth, I'm also a victim of doxxing by some d&d psycho like you. Mod edit: no, we are not going to have an exchange of goons.xls here to try and identify exactly how much personal info is too much (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia, unless you want to argue Brian Williams talking about the beauty of our weaponry is objective analysis. Almost like the objection is not to impartiality but who the impartiality is for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia, unless you want to argue Brian Williams talking about the beauty of our weaponry is objective analysis. Almost like the objection is not to impartiality but who the impartiality is for. Do you have any sources that the US has even close to as much control over the media as Russia has over RT? Or a quote of someone who thinks RT is untrustworthy but blindly believes Western sources?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia, unless you want to argue Brian Williams talking about the beauty of our weaponry is objective analysis. Almost like the objection is not to impartiality but who the impartiality is for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you have any sources that the US has even close to as much control over the media as Russia has over RT? Or a quote of someone who thinks RT is untrustworthy but blindly believes Western sources? There's no G men that walk around newsrooms and tell American journalists what to write. There don't need to be G men doing that. The control is not direct, and yet the media is compliant and largely uncritically takes the line of the state department and the pentagon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:There's no G men that walk around newsrooms and tell American journalists what to write. There don't need to be G men doing that. The control is not direct, and yet the media is compliant and largely uncritically takes the line of the state department and the pentagon. The "media" is such a large vague category here to almost be meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Any time I try to search for anything now, half the top results are clearly AI generated spam articles, often even when I'm searching truly obscure errata. I'd suggest nationalizing twitter as a first step but we'd need to figure out how to reconcile the 1st amendment with the paradox of tolerance. Systematically, at scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Any time I try to search for anything now, half the top results are clearly AI generated spam articles, often even when I'm searching truly obscure errata. Nationalizing an online platform has always been an idea I've toyed with, I mean Twitter or something like it basically serves as an online Post Office in a lot of ways. But yeah government control means censorship and moderation become real tricky things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Any time I try to search for anything now, half the top results are clearly AI generated spam articles, often even when I'm searching truly obscure errata. the problem is that SEO has gotten too good at gaming google search algorithms, we are kinda back at the earlier days of the internet when instead of having reliable search engine to give you what you want you kinda just have to know 3-5 places to look for answers to things you want nationalizing whatever won't fix the problem: there's way too much money to gaming search results
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Nationalizing an online platform has always been an idea I've toyed with, I mean Twitter or something like it basically serves as an online Post Office in a lot of ways. But yeah government control means censorship and moderation become real tricky things. there would be -less- censorship/moderation on a 1st amendment protected public platform than on a private platform. however keep in mind this might not produce the results you want. A lot of the content coming out would just be transphobia and racism, now protected by the constitution from being removed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:there would be -less- censorship/moderation on a 1st amendment protected public platform than on a private platform. Yeah that's the problem, it would be full on hate speech 24/7, the right's very good at organizing harassment and bot armies already with no censorship or moderation everything would turn to unusable poo poo very fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:just append "reddit" to your search will instantly improve results I mean we could also nationalize Google and stop selling advertising on it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah that's the problem, it would be full on hate speech 24/7, the right's very good at organizing harassment and bot armies already with no censorship or moderation everything would turn to unusable poo poo very fast. yeah when twitter first came out I was pretty optimistic about the democraization of information etc turns out reality really really doesn't work that way
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you have any sources that the US has even close to as much control over the media as Russia has over RT? Or a quote of someone who thinks RT is untrustworthy but blindly believes Western sources? The first mistake you're making is assuming propaganda can only be dispersed through a nationalist versus non-nationalist actor. Do I believe America media is controlled by America capital? Yes. Because it's owned across the board by American capital. The second mistake is more a deliberate tactic to reframe the argument. RT isn't being singled out as un-objective, which no one would argue it is, but actively worthless and harmful. By singling it out, by implication, one frames American media as not that "except Fox News," which shows the real biases at play. MSNBC is more objective than Fox News? Is that why they gave the current president's press secretary a show on their network?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean we could also nationalize Google and stop selling advertising on it at all. Isn't the problem that sites are cheating to compete for spots on Google to sell ads and not Google selling ads itself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean we could also nationalize Google and stop selling advertising on it at all. you don't need google to show ads on your website, you just need google to show your website at the top of the result list so ppl click on it
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Typo posted:yeah when twitter first came out I was pretty optimistic about the democraization of information etc I mean it *can*. Wikipedia is still doing pretty well overall, and provides a perfectly usable model . . .so long as you have a low cost to operate and can rely on philanthropy and manage to avoid having anyone interested in rent extraction in your leadership So yeah I usually just add "wiki" to all my searches now
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean it *can*. Wikipedia is still doing pretty well overall, and provides a perfectly usable model . . Wikipedia depends on an enormous amount of moderation (which you can easily frame as censorship) by volunteers and is yeah, still a private organization it would be pretty interesting how Wikipedia functions if it gets nationalized now that I think about it, does every single mod action to remove some BS now eligible to be taken up in court on 1st amendment grounds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:The first mistake you're making is assuming propaganda can only be dispersed through a nationalist versus non-nationalist actor. Do I believe America media is controlled by America capital? Yes. Because it's owned across the board by American capital. The second mistake is more a deliberate tactic to reframe the argument. RT isn't being singled out as un-objective, which no one would argue it is, but actively worthless and harmful. By singling it out, by implication, one frames American media as not that "except Fox News," which shows the real biases at play. MSNBC is more objective than Fox News? Is that why they gave the current president's press secretary a show on their network? I mean, there's no such thing as perfect objectivity and everything has a bias. Is there somewhere you would like to go with this? Are you saying that it's impossible to objectively evaluate how relatively truthful any source of information is and then what? Are all news sources truly equal on all subjects? How do you propose we live in a post truth society?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Typo posted:Wikipedia depends on an enormous amount of moderation by volunteers Oh no sorry I meant the Wikipedia model as an alternative to nationalization. Private nonprofit foundation relying on charitable rather than capitalistic support. In reality though such models are dependent on leadership. The minute Jimmy Wales dies and the next CEO starts trying to charge money for "optimized" Wikipedia pages, it's over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh no sorry I meant the Wikipedia model as an alternative to nationalization. Private nonprofit foundation relying on charitable rather than capitalistic support. I think Wikipedia is in a dangerous spot that it's been pretty good on a broad range of subjects for a long time that people forget that it's edited largely by internet nobodies and is subject to the same stresses as every other source. They even have a page detailing the historical challenges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia I think reddit is in the same boat, where as a community aggregator people will try to game it for malicious purposes, so it will always be a buyer beware situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I think Wikipedia is in a dangerous spot that it's been pretty good on a broad range of subjects for a long time that people forget that it's edited largely by internet nobodies and is subject to the same stresses as every other source. They even have a page detailing the historical challenges: at least there isn't as much immediate financial incentive to game wiki as there is to gaming google
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I mean, there's no such thing as perfect objectivity and everything has a bias. Is there somewhere you would like to go with this? Who even knows, I get my slop from the same trough as anyone, but I think invoking nationalistic tropes under the guise of integrity is gross. In any case, I'm reminded of AlJazeera America a decade back interviewing a CCP official on the South China Sea, and he just gave a canned response, and the interviewer moved on. It's not a nuanced perspective, but it did give a glimpse on the Chinese state's view more directly than the New York Times pretending they're a neutral party as they call a blatant genocide an "Israel-Hamas War." National agencies like RT, BBC, NHK, etc. have more my respect than Western televised media theater, even if they very much don't have my trust. I wish there was clearer national media in America for other independent agencies to compete against instead of this nebulous reframing of the state capital PoV doing cosplay as independent journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:but it did give a glimpse on the Chinese state's view more directly than the New York Times pretending they're a neutral party as they call a blatant genocide an "Israel-Hamas War." National agencies like RT, BBC, NHK, etc. have more my respect than Western televised media theater, even if they very much don't have my trust. I don't think RT or BBC are calling it a genocide either
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Typo posted:I don't think RT or BBC are calling it a genocide either That misses the point. I don't trust or care what RT or BBC say, it's about knowing their respective state sponsors think. That can then be analyzed. With Fox News or MSNBC or CNN, you have to get through their cultural signaling first before reaching the state or capital's true messaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I think Wikipedia is in a dangerous spot that it's been pretty good on a broad range of subjects for a long time that people forget that it's edited largely by internet nobodies and is subject to the same stresses as every other source. They even have a page detailing the historical challenges: Oh sure no system is perfectible. I'm just looking for examples of systems that have proven able to function without obvious corruption, financial collapse, or what Cory doctorow has been referring to as "enshittification". Reddit is also worth looking at yeah. There's a reason we keep adding "Reddit" or "wiki" to our searches. What's that reason and can we adapt it out to other media?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh sure no system is perfectible. I'm just looking for examples of systems that have proven able to function without obvious corruption, financial collapse, or what Cory doctorow has been referring to as "enshittification". the crass answer is simply that SEO haven't adapted yet so if you just add reddit to end of a search term you get relevant answers like you would have 10 years ago but if everyone starts to append 'reddit' to end of questions like "what phone should I buy" rest assured it will be useless quickly as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
Phone posting, so sorry for breaking up posting, but for instance: If RT's coverage of Israel goes from positive to negative, you know that signifies a shift in Russia's feelings about expanding access to Israel. They will lie about the reasons behind that shift, give a nonsensical moral argument as to why, act like Russia is anti-imperial when that's a joke, but you get a glimpse of Moscow's personal stance. If Fox News goes from rabid hawks under Republicans to isolationist under Dems though, that means nothing because Fox will just turn hawk when the Republicans reassure power, and throughout this, will continue to invite State Department freaks for softball interviews. And same with MSNBC and war. It means nothing, it's just part of the campaigning mechanism even though the general state/capital/media's thesis stays the same, which is Raytheon Stocks Up Is Good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
Typo posted:the crass answer is simply that SEO haven't adapted yet It shouldn't really be an issue since Google allows you to just search under a site directly. Adding "reddit" at the end is a simpler but worse way but adding "site:reddit.com" will actually filter all results to only reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
koolkal posted:It shouldn't really be an issue since Google allows you to just search under a site directly. Adding "reddit" at the end is a simpler but worse way but adding "site:reddit.com" will actually filter all results to only reddit. what if SEO companies can just figure out how to make -their- post show up on top of the list if you enter site:reddit.com it's probably harder to do it on someone else's platform tho, and the cost to doing so (i.e getting around anti-botting measures) might be more expensive than it's worth
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Phone posting, so sorry for breaking up posting, but for instance: If RT's coverage of Israel goes from positive to negative, you know that signifies a shift in Russia's feelings about expanding access to Israel. They will lie about the reasons behind that shift, give a nonsensical moral argument as to why, act like Russia is anti-imperial when that's a joke, but you get a glimpse of Moscow's personal stance. I think it's kinda naive to think you can filter out some nugget of truth from the lies RT (or anybody) feeds you without getting affected. It's like sure you can spot the obvious lies, but there will be non obvious ones slipping through the net the whole time. Especially since RTs model itself is to be contradictory on purpose so that its harder puzzle out Russia's true intent. It's called firehose of bullshit for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean we could also nationalize Google and stop selling advertising on it at all. Corey Doctorow solution was something called "privacy first." So many of the worst problems of the tech industry spring from their ability to do surveillance and tracking on a grand scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Phone posting, so sorry for breaking up posting, but for instance: If RT's coverage of Israel goes from positive to negative, you know that signifies a shift in Russia's feelings about expanding access to Israel. They will lie about the reasons behind that shift, give a nonsensical moral argument as to why, act like Russia is anti-imperial when that's a joke, but you get a glimpse of Moscow's personal stance. I think this is based on a misunderstanding of Fox News borne from not watching it. They have isolationists and hawks on all the time, and their commentators range from incoherent and vibes-driven to strong feelings, with no particular pattern. Even highly partisan outlets don't have a party line on every single possible issue or topic. So on those topics, you can easily accuse them of flipflopping or politically tactical bad-faith rhetoric when they're just doing normal reporting and commentary. This applies to RT as well, especially in English. They have strong editorial control that is aligned with the state, but it doesn't mean they care strongly about every detail on every subject. Writers can have domain-specific free rein on topics even in the context of an outlet that has next to no editorial independence whatsoever. However! Probably Magic posted:The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia, unless you want to argue Brian Williams talking about the beauty of our weaponry is objective analysis. Almost like the objection is not to impartiality but who the impartiality is for. Independence not mean objectivity. Every news agency is going to consider their own government's interests as a fact worth reporting, and all but the most oppositional will consider enthusiastic support of the current government a POV worth publishing. They are biased, obviously. The difference is that independent newsrooms are dedicated to reporting the truth as they see it, rather than acting as a state organ. This is never going to be The Truth, ofc. In the US, it will come through a filter of being a profit-seeking business, as well as a Respected Institution or at least On A Mission. They're separate entities that can obviously be influenced by their own state('s many various agencies), but generally don't see their interests as synonymous with those of a government, agency, or party. Even Fox News positions itself as what Republicans should be, with little regard for where they are. There isn't a sharp line here. State-funded media can be highly independent or the proverbial Pravda. It needs to be understood in the context of its own business culture and the power relationship it has with its owners, just like any media outlet. However, this lack of consonance means the state doesn't get to edit the news. In a liberal democratic state like the US, news agencies are setting their own agenda, according to their interests. This includes sucking up to the government, but it's a slack leash; independence means they're hard to micromanage. The control is softer and comes more in the form of censorious chilling pressure rather than an actual censor office, so there's more possibility for things to be too minor to merit leaning on the press or too enticing to not report on, even if the state would rather not. This makes Kremlinology-style breakdowns of what a news story says about an outlet's POV significantly harder, but also makes them generally more useful for finding out what's going on. Even if it is through a glass darkly. The short version is that no, there are important functional differences in the mechanisms of control and propaganda between the US and Russia. Independent news agencies are different, even if that independence isn't absolute. WarpedLichen posted:Especially since RTs model itself is to be contradictory on purpose so that its harder puzzle out Russia's true intent. It's called firehose of bullshit for a reason. This, however, this is xenophobic bullcrap. Even the most beholden state mouthpieces have a range of acceptable positions. It's not a plot to trick you. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:However, this lack of consonance means the state doesn't get to edit the news. In a liberal democratic state like the US, news agencies are setting their own agenda, according to their interests. This includes sucking up to the government, but it's a slack leash; independence means they're hard to micromanage. The control is softer and comes more in the form of censorious chilling pressure rather than an actual censor office, so there's more possibility for things to be too minor to merit leaning on the press or too enticing to not report on, even if the state would rather not. This makes Kremlinology-style breakdowns of what a news story says about an outlet's POV significantly harder, but also makes them generally more useful for finding out what's going on. Even if it is through a glass darkly. This may have been true in the middle of last century, but the current media climate has led to a much stiffer leash done under the guise of "preventing misinformation." The only outcome of the Facebook hearings didn't seem to be an actual stuffing of leaks of personal information to corporations, it was Facebook suddenly priding itself as a "news agency" (it is not) that needed to "fact check" and correct what was posted on it (which it wasn't able to do without having the Washington Examiner as part of its overreach, ha). Similarly, tones of objectivity were given up by more centrist liberal media like CNN in favor of naked partisanship I think for a variety of factors that had little to do with truth. What's more, the idea that Chris Hedges was taking his talking points directly from Putin while Jen Psaki is coming up with ideas herself seems kind of ridiculous to me, unless we just want to argue that Hedges was talking head there and not part of RT's broader reporting, which I'd be more than willing to acquiesce on. The other part being, documentaries like Control Room from during the Iraq War showed the extent that chilling could go, down to completely freezing out the liberal media at the time from military press conferences and the like, which could be an argument that there's legit independence going on with the liberal media at the time except their response to that was to fire anti-war voices and stay on message with the administration up until the war went sour and it became acceptable to field dissenting voices. (And the dissenting voice was a loving ex-Sportscenter guy, so that tells you how serious it was for them.) Differentiating between that level of passive control versus the supposedly more active control of RT feels pointless to me because it leads to the same result, a hegemony of narrative. But you got me on Fox News, I don't know what the gently caress they're talking about over there these days. Or RT for that matter. CNN is more than enough to drive me insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh sure no system is perfectible. I'm just looking for examples of systems that have proven able to function without obvious corruption, financial collapse, or what Cory doctorow has been referring to as "enshittification". The reason is that instead of paying people to produce or moderate content, Reddit and Wikipedia just rely on volunteer armies of obsessive nerds constantly fighting each other for gamified clout. StackOverflow too. It's actually a pretty terrible model. It just wins by default because it's turned out to be very difficult to make a profit publishing useful information on the internet for free, so every site that actually pays their employees has gone behind a paywall, turned into a low-quality content farm, or dropped out of the free information business altogether. Cease to Hope posted:However, this lack of consonance means the state doesn't get to edit the news. In a liberal democratic state like the US, news agencies are setting their own agenda, according to their interests. This includes sucking up to the government, but it's a slack leash; independence means they're hard to micromanage. The control is softer and comes more in the form of censorious chilling pressure rather than an actual censor office, so there's more possibility for things to be too minor to merit leaning on the press or too enticing to not report on, even if the state would rather not. This makes Kremlinology-style breakdowns of what a news story says about an outlet's POV significantly harder, but also makes them generally more useful for finding out what's going on. Even if it is through a glass darkly. There's also another important pressure affecting independent news agencies: the desire to report what the public wants to hear. Independent news outlets ultimately make their money from getting the most viewers, and so they do need to be conscious of public opinion and they do tend to drift toward popular views and stances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This, however, this is xenophobic bullcrap. Even the most beholden state mouthpieces have a range of acceptable positions. It's not a plot to trick you. I agree here, with the caveat that internal inconsistency is also believed to be a part of the Russian model not because it obscures their actual position, but because it a) expands their reach to a larger set of audiences, b) drives them to adopt a cynical and instrumental relationship with reality which itself benefits anchoring and, c) drives conflicting viewpoints that deteriorate civic participation. Notably this discusses both multichannel (e.g. multi-angle proxy social media entities) and within-channel (RT) source claim variation, as well as individual source (Putin statement) inconsistencies. The original Rand report that's the source of the firehose of falsehoods concept discusses this a bit. quote:The final distinctive characteristic of Russian propaganda is that it is not committed to consistency. First, different propaganda media do not necessarily broadcast the exact same themes or messages. Second, different channels do not necessarily broadcast the same account of contested events. Third, different channels or representatives show no fear of “changing their tune.” If one falsehood or misrepresentation is exposed or is not well received, the propagandists will discard it and move on to a new (though not necessarily more plausible) explanation. One example of such behavior is the string of accounts offered for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Russian sources have offered numerous theories about how the aircraft came to be shot down and by whom, very few of which are plausible. Lack of commitment to consistency is also apparent in statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin. For example, he first denied that the “little green men” in Crimea were Russian soldiers but later admitted that they were. Similarly, he at first denied any desire to see Crimea join Russia, but then he admitted that that had been his plan all along. More broadly, "capital" remains not a monolith and claims about interpreting the will of capital as the controller of "Western" media remain unfalsifiably broad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
an interesting tidbit is that this is true even in state media when given some degree of independence like during the 2000s Beijing gave its state owned media agencies more freedom to report on stuff they want: the theory was that they would do investigate journalism on corruption within local governments and help the central government keep them line instead what they got was hyper-nationalistic venting over boundary disputes in the south China sea and elevate a bunch of fairly inconsequential incidents over fishing vessels into a major national cause when Beijing didn't particularly -want- to escalate. And the reason wasn't so much because the people managing those agencies supported escalation, it was just because nationalism sold well and the different media agencies were fighting for ratings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:25
|
|