|
LionYeti posted:Because of the glut of information we generally don't read more then headlines. What's hilariously tragic is that Journalists got addicted to and started posting on the thing that hastened the demise of American media more then anything else, Twitter. It turns out in the modern world we don't want the deeper story especially if you have to pay for it and journalists were all too happy to give away the most important parts for free. Yeah, giving it away for free is a big detriment. The other thing being that news is meant to be shared and journalists really want spread info and that's kinda antithetical to being subscription locked. I really don't think a donation based pay as you read is going to be sufficient for anything but the most meager operating costs. What I really hope is that they can leverage the eyeballs they have, if a journalist has to hawk Raid Shadow Legends, so be it. What that would require is some kind of platform amenable to that. I'm not sure how much Wikipedia is making from donations, but it can't be on par with the value it provides, and I think journalists would be worse off than that.
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1652390098166509572 It would be interesting to see but I have to imagine that the population this would extract value from is minimal. At best it creates a psychological effect where people associate more value to a subscription as a result of individual article prices. Otherwise it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that news aggregators and sensationalist headlines have created. In other news Vice is going bankrupt and nobody wants to acquire - which seems to me that the reputation a news source builds up is worth very little - one news source is likely as good as the next to the majority of people. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/business/media/vice-bankruptcy.html
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. What is their purpose for repeating lies if not to trick you? The entire media apparatus in this model is to manufacture consent, which implies changing or directing a viewer's attention and thought patterns, which if done with false evidence is the exact definition of "trick." There might be a purpose to state media, but for some outlets it basically ceases to be about informing and more about just inciting fervor. If you consume such media, you're going to be duped. This is not isolated to RT, but there are other examples like OAN. If you watch for news about coverage for election fraud, it would take outside knowledge to know that the allegations are made up. Basically, even if you take it with a grain of salt, it's so far outside the truth that it's useless unless you want to know what bullshit OAN is spewing. It's like watching Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf about the Invasion of Iraq. The solution to excessively bad news outlets is to stop treating them as news, and I believe RT for example would qualify.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The part of your claim that's incorrect, imo (can't speak for Cease to Hope ofc) is that the repetition of different lies is for the purpose of obscuring their actual position. Russia, in publicly acknowledged (mostly) directly controlled channels, is usually pretty direct with those beliefs. I would say that my position is that you cannot reliably determine Russia's actual position from the lies they tell and to do so is just an exercise in reading tea leaves. Observing the narrative the state is pushing is not observing the internal position of the state. The narrative that the state is strong does not mean that the state actually feels that it is itself strong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:So this whole differentiation of RT as a unique bogeymen while not nearly leaning into portraying American media as a similar bogeyman is also an obvious disparity. I think this is the part I have the most issue with - are all media sources biased in some way? Yes, I agree. Are Western new sources bad in some ways? Absolutely. Are they bad in the same way? I would say no. However, I think there is a matter of degree - where some sources are complete garbage not worth considering at all except for academic reasons (not as news) and others worth examining for their biases when reporting actual news. If your position is that all media outlets are naked propaganda outlets and are therefore equally valid, that's where I'm going to have to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:As for Psaki, I think that's more to my point, that such proxification should be made official instead of the blurred line. Who would they be a proxy for? What sort of nebulous entity Fox News could claim to be a representative of? Or CNN? Or anybody? Are they all magical mouthpieces for the establishment or the US government? My understanding of what you're saying is that because the execution of free speech isn't perfectly separate from influence, we should just do away with the notion of it entirely and just call all US news organizations the equivalent of state mouthpieces because at least its honest. While I would argue that that's not the case and that our media is actually still a giant step up from state mouthpieces.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What I'm saying is that a better way to understand the influence of state entities would be to let them have an official-official mouthpiece which would also allow for other US News organizations to act as separate actors. If those actors parrot the mouthpiece, we know what they are. But I'm not and never would argue for entirely forsaking the fourth estate to the state. Basically, Public Option for Media. Yeah that makes no sense, Russia doesn't just have RT, it tries to push its narrative in other outlets as well. The existence of a Public Option wouldn't reduce government influence in the other news sources at all. I've said in other threads that the government absolutely has to attempt to control the info-space it operates in because if it doesn't it just cedes that entirely to outside actors without those qualms. But the lines between influence and control are blurry and any act of moderation can be seen as inappropriate. That also doesn't account for the default biases people have just from coming from a society. Like just having writers and editors being American will influence how news is presented. I absolutely think foreign news is worth looking at just to see how those biases come into play. But in the end, everybody is human and you still have to pick and choose sources that pass a sniff test as bedrock for your examination. Edit: I think what you might actually want is some form of stronger disclosure and transparency requirements when it comes to news? Like the platonic ideal for this might be the wikipedia page edit history? WarpedLichen fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:According to themselves when they got hit with "state-sponsored media," they're extremely not! Which lol. (But yeah, give NPR a station.) I think it really depends on how you read news and what your takeaways are from them. I don't think a label necessarily makes a source's bias easier to parse. I think for me personally if the concrete facts around the reporting are solid, there's at least some value to take away with you slice off all the fluff and presentation, but if the concrete facts are manufactured and passed off as real, that's when it's time to throw the whole thing into the bin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
I think this is very much a "vibes" thing and there's no real way to prove or disprove the degree of bias in a specific media sphere, given that it's almost impossible to do so on even one channel due to the variety of programming.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 01:19
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I'd agree with that, and it's nigh impossible to fetch clips of CNN ragging on Trump on and on for daring to engage in talks with North Korea after weeks of withholding judgement on him blowing up people in the Middle East because it was just something I caught on television in the daytime, so it's impossible to show the specific examples that come to mind. But trust me, it happened, my uncle who works at Nintendo was there and everything. Yeah, but even mainstream US media is a broad category, and there are plenty of more smaller/independent outfits with a different set of biases that you can complain about. Even Russia has other outlets like Meduza which I consider to be worth reading, but they will have flaws too if you read everything they ever put out critically, and that really shouldn't be the bar you use to judge things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:For the record, my original argument wasn't that negative coverage of North Korea wasn't warranted, it's that America covers itself far softer than it does North Korea. I can find any article discussing American plans of military action in, say, the Middle East, that do not find America's larger role in the area worthy of note. Here's an example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/us-troops-deploying-middle-east/index.html Nothing is brought up about America's historical antagonist of Iran, their assassination of their generals, their support of Iraq in attacking Iran, breaking of nuclear treaties with Iran, etc., because that's not viewed as "relevant information," even though anything North Korea is viewed as relevant information. This is the essence of my argument, and if I've resorted to categorical imperative when it comes to mandates of addressal, I apologize, but as I've already stated, that is not a concern or a generalized dissatisfaction that is isolated to me. I think the rub is that this isn't really quantifiable in any manner. How harshly should America cover itself? How much is North Korea deserving of its coverage? If America isn't self flagellating itself enough for you, that's fine, but you have to admit that the exact level of coverage isn't something we can measure beyond vibes. When it comes to foreign coverage of America, even if those views are harsher than how America covers itself, the question of is it as harsh as it "should" be is not an answerable question. There's no point in discussing levels that we can't quantify in any reasonable way so unless you have some other point you want to make beyond America media is bad (because it is overly nice to America?), there's nothing more to discuss. We can cover specific instances where a piece doesn't give America enough flak, but that's like counting grains of sand on the beach, what purpose is it serving?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 08:12
|
|