Toward a viable model of journalism

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Toward a viable model of journalism

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I helped stand up a detailed media literacy thread that is probably going to be very helpful for this topic if you don't want it to get trolled into the ground.

T Zero posted:

Be honest: Where is the first place you usually hear about news? Facebook? Twitter? Your groupchat? Or do you actually pick up the paper every morning?

I learn about most all news from news media sources, or when it comes to government agency action in the US, about 50/50 from the agency directly. This frequently comes in the form of email alerts.

T Zero posted:

How do you support people doing the kinds of journalism you find valuable?

I pay them with money.

T Zero posted:

Do you pay for any forms of media? Why? Or if you used to, what made you stop paying?

I pay for all news media I consume on any regular basis, including from sources that don't require payment for access. This is necessary to keep their activities viable.

T Zero posted:

What's an obscure or non-mainstream source of news you found to be useful or reliable?

"Mainstream" continues to not be a useful term for kinds news media. I read the federal register, which is a reporting outlet but not a news outlet, to cover many forms of US government activity, on a daily basis.

T Zero posted:

Should there be government funding for media a la BBC? Or a bailout for ailing local news outlets?

There are a lot of such funding programs that need not match direct standup; some of this is developed or in use by major nonprofits on a grant basis already. This is potentially a good use for humanities funding.

T Zero posted:

How do you think the news media industry will actually shake out over the coming years?

We're likely to hit a new equilibrium, but a great deal depends on antitrust enforcement.

DrSunshine posted:

Perhaps what we are experiencing is a return to the mean, and what we should do rather than vitiate against the death of a single mass narrative is to embrace the bunkerization and compartmentalization of news into whatever hearsay is shared among our close groups of affiliates, our echo-chambers. That's essentially what we ran on for ages - in our villages and tribes - before the rise of mass literacy and newspapers, and perhaps the rise of small group-chats on all forms of social media is a return to that.

This would be catastrophic. There is in fact an objective external reality and descending into culturally mediated relativism does great harm to our ability to function. The sharing and spread of truthful information is necessary to society.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Apr 28, 2023

# ¿ Apr 27, 2023 23:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 17:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

DrSunshine posted:

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here a bit, so please forgive me, but let's pick this apart a bit. How would it do great harm? Or rather, how is journalism per se necessarily the conveyor of truth? That is to say - why is it assumed that journalism has a one to one correspondence to truth?

On the converse end, what is the actual relevance or significance of knowing a truthful fact about something which is out of the power of the knower to influence? Say for example, you live in France, and on Le Monde, you learn about a grain silo explosion in Nebraska - the largest grain silo explosion in recorded history. It's a truthful bit of information, but barely has any relevance to you except a momentary glimmer of interest.

I am not remotely interested in entertaining explicitly bad faith bullshit about whether or not truthfulness has value, again. I linked an entire thread of trying to push back against that garbage.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Apr 29, 2023 00:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lightly updated from the media lit thread OP material I'd provided before, since we're speedrunning the relativism and anti, uh, "gravitas" arguments...

quote:

�Think for yourself� doesn�t mean rationalize more
A core issue with many people�s approach to media literacy is they think of it as finding a single, true lens through which to understand information and the world- a rule or worldview or rubric that they can use to decide what sources are good or bad. This is often couched in the language of universal skepticism, or seeing through the �mainstream media.� �I�m skeptical of every source� and "all media is biased" is bullshit. No one can be skeptical of every source equally, and all too often it means rejecting good sources that are just communicating challenging or unappealing information. Taking these positions actually makes a person even more vulnerable to disinformation, because disinfo campaigns actively target such individuals and prey upon their biases. The Intercept article and RT will both tell you- they will give you the stories no one else will.

Similarly, a single theory (including, or even especially, �crit� theories that provide an overarching narrative telling you what sources are good or bad) will instead steer you toward messages that appeal to you for all the wrong reasons. There�s a reason these posts are a bunch of material pulled from different sources- a toolkit will make you much more intellectually versatile than a single mythological correct way to understand media.

# ¿ May 2, 2023 04:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cease to Hope posted:

Most of what you quoted seems to be inveighing against an imagined foe who is somehow both a relativist but also sees the world strictly in terms of good and bad. You frequently scold unnamed interlocutors for reducing press outlets to "good and bad", but also decry relativism or applying a universal standard of skepticism. It's not very insightful to say that people should exercise judgement, but exercise it correctly. This doesn't doesn't seem to be useful advice, but the rest of it does raise some interesting questions.

Are there risks to be concerned about other than active malice?

Why is "'crit' theory" in scare quotes? It's hard to discuss the role of journalism or reporting without reference to the field. Are you referring to a specific theory here?

In what shared way do the Intercept and RT say or imply that it's the only source of truth? How does that differ from, say, Propublica? How does it differ from "All the news that's fit to print" or the implications of "Democracy dies in darkness"?

Is there a reason why you mention the Intercept, whose reporting is well-respected, in the same breath as RT, who is not?

You can go to the media lit thread and relitigate all of those questions again, if you want. I'm not going to repeat the same back and forth with you here and pretend you didn't already try it there.

# ¿ May 2, 2023 06:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

From CJR's most recent issue:

Survival Guide
Advice for navigating digital media�s upheaval

This contains a bunch of brief statements from people in news media trying different approaches, and giving different suggestions for how journalism can move forward and exist. Some of these are quite unusual and may help restart discussion.

edit: vvv I have no idea what you're talking about.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 3, 2023

# ¿ Dec 2, 2023 23:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

T Zero posted:

To this forum I pose the following questions:

Be honest: Where is the first place you usually hear about news? Facebook? Twitter? Your groupchat? Or do you actually pick up the paper every morning?

I hear about breaking news about 50% directly from some media source, usually email alerts, 40% through either SA or discord (which I then track back to its source), or 10% from other sources, usually related to my work.

T Zero posted:

How do you support people doing the kinds of journalism you find valuable?
Do you pay for any forms of media? Why? Or if you used to, what made you stop paying?

I spend around 2.5k annually on journalism, comprising both subscriptions and relatively small donations to a number of journalistic nonprofits. I do this because I view the work as valuable and want it to continue.

T Zero posted:

Do you have an idea for a media business model?

I don't have any groundbreaking new ideas, but there are a number of existing ones worth discussing in separate posts.

T Zero posted:

What's an obscure or non-mainstream source of news you found to be useful or reliable?

I don't find "mainstream" to have a lot of value as a descriptor- at this point I'm not sure what it means.

T Zero posted:

Should there be government funding for media a la BBC? Or a bailout for ailing local news outlets?

Yes. CPB exists, and should be funded at levels vastly beyond the current rate.

T Zero posted:

How do you think the news media industry will actually shake out over the coming years?

No idea.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2023 19:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I would support $17.5 billion in federal funding for CPB.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2023 21:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zoeb, you should read all of the exchange that followed my post.

Zoeb posted:

I wouldn't regard the Intercept as a bad source at all and while RT is Russian state media, I think it has its uses as a comparison to American corporate media.

No. RT is, demonstrably, by design, a state propaganda outlet which works to sabotage and undermine the ability of viewers to participate in civic discourse, including through the spread of disinformaton. It is not a good source of information or a contrast to "American corporate media", a term too broad, too vague, and too inaccurate to meaningfully inform beliefs or practices. There's plenty of sources of information that aren't "corporate" or aren't "American" without using the actively disingenuous source of information. The point of the part of the post you've focused on is communicating that a part of the disingenuous appeal made by both the Intercept and RT is to present the claim of hidden knowledge, which is a very bad source indicator because they are encouraging privileging their framing and mediation over others.

On the Intercept, from the earlier exchange:

socialsecurity posted:

This ironically circles back to the issue of "people just want to read the headline" DV posted a single Intercept article in that thread that was bad. He then posted dozens of times about how just because a place posts a bad article or has weaknesses doesn't mean it's a useless source of information. So trying to "own" him with good articles from the Intercept just proves the point he was trying to make in the first place.

Which leads to the problem journalism seems have, people mostly only care about headlines and outrage not what actually happened or reading any sort of actual article describing the situation, certainly not enough to pay for it.

Zoeb posted:

Russia is lovely but they are not the sum of all evils.

Russia does not need to be the sum of all evils for you to recognize that their propaganda outlet is not a good source of information.

Zoeb posted:

I am particularly appalled by their treatment of the LGBT community and its choice to invade Ukraine rather than using some other method, for instance. On foreign policy though, they are also up against American Empire and all of its cruelties, including genocide, abusing 3rd world debt to impose pro-business policy on less powerful countries, sanctions that starve people,

You really, really need to learn what Russia is doing with its own foreign policy and what it is actually attempting to accomplish by its own actions, including state propaganda directed at the US. You will not learn about those things from RT.

Zoeb posted:

and most importantly for this thread, a compliant mainstream media that it pressures in to doing stenography for the pentagon and state department.

"Mainstream media" continues to not be a useful term- it's a way to avoid thinking about the specifics of what works or doesn't work about sources. There are plenty of sources of information, including mass media outlets, that are not...whatever you think this "stenography" is.

Zoeb posted:

They didn't invade Ukraine for no reason at all or because Putin is the new Hitler.

Zoeb posted:

Folks over at C-spam gave me a perspective I had not considered, that the Euromaidan protest was an illegitimate coup against a democratically elected leader by a minority of the country situated in the west, that was stirred up at least in part by the CIA.

You need to stop and reconsider why you are specifically getting this "perspective", grounded in state propaganda and a conspiracy theory, from the forum with even lower moderation standards, and you should engage more critically with the idea of using cspam as media.

Zoeb posted:

I feel that RT, for all its flaws is a useful counterweight to US corporate media, as long as it is in moderation, and used in comparison to US media, which has blind spots. We should see more than one side to the story.

You do not need to consume propaganda "in moderation", nor do you need to use RT as a "counterweight" to anything, and as you are apparently consuming it as mediated through cspam, you are already demonstrating why: the "perspective you have not considered" is already loving bonkers. There are plenty of other sources of information than RT or cspam, and you can in fact get "more than one side" to issues from such other sources. However, conversely, you should not feel compelled to "see more than one side" to reality. External reality exists, and equivocation about that will primarily serve to drive you to sources, like RT, that will make you unable to participate in good faith discussion rooted in facts.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 10, 2023

# ¿ Dec 10, 2023 19:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

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: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

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.

Again, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on influence and persuasion. If sources are not consistent, how can they be credible? If they are not credible, how can they be influential? Research suggests that inconsistency can have deleterious effects on persuasion�for example, when recipients make an effort to scrutinize inconsistent messages from the same source. However, the literature in experimental psychology also shows that audiences can overlook contradictions under certain circumstances:

Contradictions can prompt a desire to understand why a shift in opinion or messages occurred. When a seemingly strong argument for a shift is provided or assumed (e.g., more thought is given or more information is obtained), the new message can have a greater persuasive impact.

When a source appears to have considered different perspectives, consumer attitudinal confidence is greater. A source who changes his or her opinion or message may be perceived as having given greater consideration to the topic, thereby influencing recipient confidence in the newest message.

Potential losses in credibility due to inconsistency are potentially offset by synergies with other characteristics of contemporary propaganda. As noted earlier in the discussion of multiple channels, the presentation of multiple arguments by multiple sources is more persuasive than either the presentation of multiple arguments by one source or the presentation of one argument by multiple sources. These losses can also be offset by peripheral cues that enforce perceptions of credibility, trustworthiness, or legitimacy. Even if a channel or individual propagandist changes accounts of events from one day to the next, viewers are likely to evaluate the credibility of the new account without giving too much weight to the prior, �mistaken� account, provided that there are peripheral cues suggesting the source is credible.

While the psychology literature suggests that the Russian propaganda enterprise suffers little when channels are inconsistent with each other, or when a single channel is internally inconsistent, it is unclear how inconsistency accumulates for a single prominent figure. While inconsistent accounts by different propagandist on RT, for example, might be excused as the views of different journalists or changes due to updated information, the fabrications of Vladimir Putin have been unambiguously attributed to him, which cannot be good for his personal credibility. Of course, perhaps many people have a low baseline expectation of the veracity of statements by politicians and world leaders. To the extent that this is the case, Putin�s fabrications, though more egregious than the routine, might be perceived as just more of what is expected from politicians in general and might not constrain his future influence potential.

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

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Typo 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.

The other attributed factor, which is a problem across all countries with internal media controls, is it only takes a few years for those involved in the propaganda apparatus, and those above them enforcing on the propaganda apparatus, to lose their own grip on reality outside of the propaganda apparatus. The incentives and motivating factors in such settings are such that everyone who doesn't believe sincerely is still going to worry about the reaction from above and from below.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 22:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Probably Magic posted:

This is not unique to RT though, as this same level of "throwing poo poo against the wall" has been used several times by Israel in the current genocidal campaign to explain away their war crimes,

I did not claim it was unique to RT. Russia is considered pioneering for the methodology and the extent to which this method is used. I'm perfectly willing to believe that several other countries are doing it. The US is not.

Probably Magic posted:

with the United States general media organs (can't believe I have to be this specific, I'd rather we didn't just constantly resort to pedantry) picking through the lies to find which one they like. This became the narrative with both "sides' major American media, and this process, at least to someone relatively young like me, makes me wonder if a similar process of "editing lies" was used in the lead-up to the Gulf War with the lies about Iraqis unplugging Kuwaiti incubators and such. We do know a method like this was used by the Bush Jr. state department in drumming up reasons to go to war.

One could say that the "cultural divide" between "liberal" and "conservative" media is just an expanded scope of this discombobulation process, that inundating the public with two narratives, both with internally inconsistent logic, leads to large-scale disconnection from civic participation. This is why I find it important not to keep focus exclusively on RT because that enables a blindness to similar processes in work in our own media. It's an exotification of media manipulation.

No. Cease to Hope has already described in some detail the qualitative and quantitative distinctions between the diversity and form of US media systems and the literal controlled foreign-facing propaganda apparatus of the Russian state. You have constructed an idea of "United States general media organs" which is specifically unspecific, which is so broad that it completely defies falsifiable claims because it widens to encompass whatever you want in order to substantiate your claim in a particular instance, and narrows to exclude whatever would disprove it. This makes it worthless.

Conversely, no one has demanded to "keep focus exclusively on RT". You are the person framing the discussion in terms of this.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 2, 2024

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 22:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WarpedLichen posted:

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."

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.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 23:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Probably Magic posted:

Generally do not think Russia is a pioneer of "lying their rear end off until something sticks," pretty sure that can be credited to every two-year-old ever. The exotification I was discussing.

No. I have already shared a source discussing the things that made Russia notable in their deployment of these methods, which were not presented as "lying their rear end off until something sticks". You not reading is not grounds for assuming I am being racist.

Probably Magic posted:

This is a common rhetorical tactic, though, in terms of hiding a clear bias, usually found in discussions of, for instance, North Korea. When North Korea is discussed in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows that are generally doing softball interviews, then the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record. Now, when military officials, even officials directly connected to warcrimes such as the Iraq War, are in those same outlets, they are not pounced on and demanded to answer for that catastrophe. It's not seen as a must-discuss. However, occasionally, occasionally discussion of American malfeasances are allowed to occur. It is not mandated the same way North Korea's are. Now, would one have to be an advocate of Korea, a believer in their propaganda or anything of the like, to see a huge disparity in reactions to coverage of Korea in American media compared to coverage of itself? "But American sins are mentioned!" But not to nearly the same extent as sins of designated enemies.

Your argument is explicitly unfalsifiable on multiple levels, and continues to be worthless as a result. You are transposing a specific claim about treatment of one subject (North Korea) to a scope of media ("American" with a vague set of outlets), then making an ill-described shift to coverage of a different specific subject (warcrimes such as the Iraq war), to make an incredibly broad and vague categorical comparison between two categories applicable to all subjects.

All of this with zero evidence.

To demonstrate, even if all this were held true, that...some media, not actually defined in scope, in the US

1. Individuals who are advocating for a specific action regarding North Korea address questions about that action relating to North Korea's civil rights record
and
2. Individuals "directly connected to warcrimes such as the Iraq War" are not "pounced on and demanded to answer for that catastrophe".

Even your equivocation isn't very equi.

You follow this with a demand that "American sins" are mentioned to the same extent as the "sins of designated enemies". Which requires the assumption that scope of subjects, of coverage, and of the sins, are identical. All of this, based on no actual evidence, is used to equivocate between the entirety of an ill-defined US media and the direct foreign-facing state controlled Russian disinformation propaganda apparatus.

Probably Magic posted:

So this whole differentiation of RT as a unique bogeymen

You are still the only one saying that Russia is a "unique bogeyman". RT stands out and comes up in discussion frequently not because it is uniquely terrible but because its problems are so well-documented and obvious.

Probably Magic posted:

while not nearly leaning into portraying American media as a similar bogeyman is also an obvious disparity.

and you are still the one requiring the inverse, demanding an equivocation between actual state controlled disinformation propaganda and the entirety of a free press.

Probably Magic posted:

Anyway,

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/

Seems like the definition of throwing poo poo against the wall to me. This would become the ongoing narrative from major media for the next two years to the point where Phil Donahue was fired from his job for objecting to it despite ostensibly being the voice on a station that opposed the ruling party.

You are attacking a position you have made up, and are continuing to shift your scope to newly ambiguous terms like "major media". Maybe you'd like to try "mainstream media" next.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 23:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Probably Magic posted:

By the way, Discendo Vox, if you're going to continue to accuse me of being imprecise as not to be falsifiable, I'm going to return that argument right back at you and ask what you mean when you say RT. Do you mean Ed Schultz? Chris Hedges? Jesse Ventura? Rick Sanchez? Lee Camp? All part of RT America. You're really going to have to be more specific in order for your argument to be considered falsifiable or not. (Or you can agree there's commonly held definitions and stop being pedantic, because I've kept my references to MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the like, as opposed to something niche like a blog.)

They're mediated through RT, the entity explicitly controlling the scope and content of their output. It's not complicated. You've still avoided any definitions and are still dodging into "and the like".

Cease to Hope posted:

Nobody is making any falsifiable claims in this thread. This aren't a lot of testable hypotheses here, let alone predictive ones.

There's plenty; for example, Probably Magic has claimed that "The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia". I think this is falsifiable; in fact I think it's false.

a) I don't think there's constant fearmongering over RT,

b) I don't think there's a complete absence of concern about Western sources (that vague definition again, remarkable how it contorts),

c) I don't think "Western sources" are "just as propagandists" as RT, and

d) I don't think concern about RT as a source of propaganda is just xenophobia.

Cease to Hope posted:

One has to wonder who is doing this believing.

This Kremlinology analysis is a favorite of useless, media-friendly DC thinktanks who often (including in this case) are little more than conspiracy theorists. It mirrors the leftist commentary you so despise, where press is the direct mouthpiece of capital. When the supposed strategy is indistinguishable from cynical disinterest, apply Ockham's razor.

Do you have any specific objections to the source or its claims? It's certainly the case that Russia uses entities as proxies other than RT that take inconsistent positions as part of a strategy of disinformation propaganda that obscures its sources and targets different fringe groups. In the media literacy thread, I provided an example of how RT uses nondisclosure of a source tie in order to remediate messaging.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 2, 2024

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 23:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zoeb posted:

For a country that values open debate, the US government certainly loves to publish propaganda internationally through Voice of America and put pressure on social media companies and cable providers not to air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel. I don't agree with those positions very much. I do see Putin as more in the wrong on Ukraine and I fully condemn his eliminationist attitude and the attitude of his allies on LGBT people but shutting down the anti-war perspective isn't right. There are times for moderation and pruning but merely being pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine war are not those times. I don't think that crossed the line. We have to face a reality where there is no algorithm for truth and that while moderation is necessary, no one with power can be trusted to do the moderation.

However problematic it may be, I think you may not be familiar with the governance structure of VoA as compared with an entity like RT or, for example, redfish. I can't evaluate your claim about "putting pressure on social media and cable companies to not air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel" because I don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. Can you provide any sources?

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 23:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Zoeb posted:

here's one: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/2/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-us-moves-to-ban-tiktok

These articles do not describe anything like what you asserted.

Probably Magic posted:

So to be clear, when Larry King had a show on RT, you think he was engaged in a disinformation campaign on behalf of the Russian government? Okay.

Larry King's show appeared on a state propaganda channel targeting, in particular, the US. This does not in itself mean any particular statements from him were disinformation, which is a narrower category of propaganda. To quote O'Donnell & Jowett (You'll also see references to "black propaganda"; O&J have a white/grey/black typology that I'm not repeating because it's not very well-defined):

quote:

To ensure the highest possible reception of the congruence of source and message, the specialized form of black propaganda known as "disinformation" has been refined in the twentieth century. The world[sic] was adopted in 1955 from the Russian term "dezinformatsia," taken from the name of a division of the KGB devoted to black propaganda. It means "false, incomplete, or misleading information that is passed, fed, or confirmed to a targeted individual, group, or country (Shultz and Godson 1984, p. 37). The term should not be confused with the word "misinformation" because it has a much more deliberate and complex goal. The techniques of disinformation are subtle and sometimes highly effective variations of black propaganda, often using news stories deliberately designed to weaken adversaries, or to present them in a negative light, but passed off as real and from credible sources.

In practice we can be confident that when King was working for RT, the outlet as a whole was engaged in disinformation propaganda.

edit: okay, you may have wanted to be clearer that King's show was purchased and re-aired by RT. In practice, then, the goal of the show was to draw more viewers to the channel with "normal" programming to onboard them to other material. It was, at a minimum, a stupid move; by 2016 few people with a choice or a conscience touched RT, and it looks like the show was still airing for a while after.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 2, 2024

# ¿ Jan 2, 2024 23:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Probably Magic posted:

No, it's on you to be more clear about what you're talking about if you're going to lecture everyone on being obtuse.

We're unclear on what Zoeb meant when he said "RT," he could've just meant Chris Hedges segments, you know, ones where criticized Russia's imperialism and the like, something he'd been doing when he was with American press as well before they dislodged him. As it is, going to need you to define "choice or conscience" when discussing RT too while we're at it, because that doesn't seem falsifiable or particularly concrete either but a very generalized statement. (I would not work for RT, but I wouldn't work for MSNBC or the like either.)

s'not complicated. During the 2010s there were multiple exposes about how RT recruited from the US journalistic workforce and their internal practices. This caused a loss of staff, support and ultimate efficacy that caused them to shutter RT America and go harder on proxy entities. Again, your equivocation between the state-controlled propaganda disinformation outlet and "American press" speaks to the fundamental problem with your position.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today

Cease to Hope posted:

PM's statement is an opinion, not a claim that can be objectively true or false.

There's a Fox joke in here somewhere; plenty of PM's statements are falsifiable, it's just that they're pretty clearly false; some of them place an improbable burden on that falsification, is all.

Cease to Hope posted:

the rand corporation's analysis is equally explained by cynical disinterest, and that sort of thinktank has long been in the business of overcomplicating russia. they don't call it kremlinology because it was a science.

Again, if you've got actual objections to the content you can make 'em.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 3, 2024

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 00:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cease to Hope posted:

it's equally easily explained by cynical disinterest on the part of RT. that is the objection. dunno how i can make it clearer than that. i even made a bunch of posts about how RT hires heterodox english-speaking commentators with basically no agenda except not intruding on specific russian interests, then occasionally feeds them laughably bad quotes or "leaks" on subjects of specific russian interest to see if someone bites.

the rand corporation's attempt to spin up indifferent neglect interspersed with occasional wall-poo poo-throwing into a master russian plan is utterly unconvincing to me. additionally, if those are their goals and these are the results, they're so bad at this that i never have to care. oh no they've subverted jimmy dore!

I don't think that's close to what the Rand report says. The claim in question was about the use of different contradictory positions, which is a part of the Russian strategy in disinformation across multiple channels, not just RT. Russia does have an explicit practice of promoting and controlling divergent fringe positions in countries they target. Very few of these efforts work very well, but when they do work, they tend to stick around because through the mediated entities, they produce a self-sustaining source of civic conflict that is detached from reality.

Zoeb posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M

Thanks for the youtube video. Here's a discussion, followed by an even longer discussion, of all the reasons Chomsky's propaganda model is not a useful tool of media analysis and instead serves principally as a form of motivated reasoning. This is the part where you should think about why Al Jazeera, which is also a state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet, wants you to find this model useful.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jan 3, 2024

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 00:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Probably Magic posted:

The example brought up in your article was Occupy Wall Street. Do you think Occupy Wall Street was a "civic conflict that is detached from reality?"

I literally linked the sources I was referring to in my post, and discussed and cited discussion of other such examples earlier. I also gave you a definition of disinformation that specifically discusses this sort of coverage and its use.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 00:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cease to Hope posted:

lmao what exactly are you insinuating about AJE here

e: don't probe DV for the arguing by insinuation either, i want to see an actual defense of this

It's not remotely hard to see that the state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet finds it useful for their audience to internalize an approach to media that lets them rationalize continued access to sources that tell them what they want to hear. Like, the idea of continuing to promote Chomsky's bullshit at this point should be a giant red flag not only for the deficits of the model but for its own track record in his hands. I'm pretty sure you know all this, though, because both you and Probably Magic actively participated in the media lit thread.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 04:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cease to Hope posted:

Okay.

First, lol, but also lmao.

Second, this idea that Chomsky is some obviously discredited crank is laughable. It's hard to argue that someone is a fringe figure when the NYT will take his calls, be it on linguistics or the politics of the day. You are suggesting that AJE must be up to something by "promoting" Chomsky's work; how deep does this conspiracy run? This argument by association doesn't hang together. "Chomsky is a fifth columnist" is a crank belief, and no amount of linking to an old thread is going to make you look less silly when you espouse it.

Third, AJE's interest in promoting this is obvious, and much less sinister than you imply: they are arguing that you should seek out news outlets that aren't part of the American consensus because that consensus excludes certain viewpoints (with truthful examples how of that is done). It's somewhat dishonest to imply that any news outlet is immune, but "Trust us, we're the real source for news" isn't a sinister plot to undermine people's confidence in whatever, just an advertising pitch.

I have already linked and described at length the problems with Chomsky's views and the propaganda model, which is what the video is mediating. The problem with Chomsky's track record with the model is not that he is a "fifth columnist", nor that he is party to some conspiracy, something I've claimed nowhere; it's that he's repeatedly used it to deny genocides.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 05:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cease to Hope posted:

yes, chomsky denied the evidence of the khmer rouge massacres for far too long, and it serves as a valuable lesson that while it is reasonable to be skeptical of the american media consensus, that isn't the same as always believing the opposite.

regardless, he's still not some sort of fringe figure and your posts on somethingawful have not convinced anyone to stop treating his views as respected political criticism.

as such, you need a whole lot more than the fact that they made a video about chomsky's book and political theory to justify calling AJE a "propaganda outlet." did you have anything else, or was this weak tea nonsense it?

You do not actually speak for everyone on this subject; I and others have described, at length, the numerous reasons why the propaganda model of media is less than worthless, and why Chomsky's subsequent which, again, I have already linked for your convenience. Here, let me save you some additional time.

evilweasel posted:

It seems to be that there is a distinction between what the "propaganda model" purports to claim or prove, and how it is used in practice.

It claims to show that what the media will focus on or report vs not report is affected by the media's interests. Call it american imperialism, whatever, who cares. The crux of the argument is that certain things will be reported, certain things not, certain things given emphasis, certain things not, and to the extent there is an editorial slant, it will be in one direction.

Importantly, none of this purports to claim that it shows the media will lie. to take the "dead priest" example: it does not claim that the media will report a fake death of a priest in poland, nor report that there have been no deaths of priests in us client states. Instead it claims that one will be reported and/or given more emphasis, and one will not be reported and/or downplayed. Not reported is very different from "claimed did not occur" = for example, the new york times did not report on any of the myriad random hearings in the eastern district of new york bankruptcy court yesterday; but did not claim no such hearings occurred (or if no hearings did occur yesterday, the last time any did, I didn't bother to check because virtually nothing important ever happens there).

So in essence the "propaganda model" may claim that a reader of the targeted media may be left with the wrong impression based on the implicit assumption that all newsworthy things were reported equally - but it does not appear to claim that the media will lie.

All of that is not terribly meaningful and rarely relevant for evaluating a specific piece of media to determine its factual accuracy. It is relevant for reminding people that the availability heuristic (what you see is a reasonable slice of the world from which to extrapolate) frequently steers you wrong. It steers you wrong in much simpler, basic issues - like "it bleeds, it leads" and other aspects of media biasing what will be presented.

However, in practice people use it to try and do precisely that: to disregard media that gives them facts they find unpleasant. for example, a facially valid use of the "propaganda model" might be to claim that the ongoing genocide against the Uighurs gets greater attention than other similar genocides due to whatever grab-bag of interests you want to point to. But in practice, the people who look to chomsky and the propaganda model use it to discredit the factual reporting to attempt to minimize or disregard the evidence of the ongoing genocide and claim it is not reliable - which is not what the model purports to allow you to do. In practice, it is simply used to provide a simple way to shunt undesired information away.

A model that is consistently misused - even by its creators - is a bad model in practice even if the instruction on the box say not to misuse it in that way; if people given the model consistently misuse it, then find a better model that doesn't suffer from that. it is much the same as putting a warning label on the "eats small children and pets" peloton: you need to consider the real world and getting correct results, instead of slapping a blame-shifting warning label.

I think that's what Vox was getting at when he says that all of the aspects of Chomsky's work that have validity are done better by other people. It is the correct approach for a model that has potentially useful insights, but is consistently misused: to take those insights and put them into a model that does not get consistently misused.

Discendo Vox posted:

evilweasel and others already repeatedly articulated the problems of the PM, which were also given at the beginning of the thread when some of the same users trying to promote it now made similar generalized attacks on media literacy. I'm going to summarize some these issues as they appear to me. This is not exhaustive, but it articulates many of the root problems with a model of �everything and nothing�, including its harm to good faith discussion.

1. Fuzzy lenses The "lenses" which serve as the primary formal components of the model aren't clearly articulated and lack boundary conditions. Some of the lenses consist of separable observations on forms of media influence, which are long-held and trivially true under some circumstances, and do not fall within the confines of the model. The PM did not discover access journalism or advertiser conflict, and these aren't functions exclusive to the settings the authors describe. I promise, flak is not exclusive to a corporate mass media ecosystem! These individual elements are made less useful by their muddled presentation in the PM. If you want to, as Ytlaya does, point out that an article has one new source and it's on background, then, great, that can be helpful in scrutinizing the piece and its context (Someone remind me to work up a short post on attribution practices sometime). That's not the PM though, and the PM doesn't help you identify that issue or its context.

2. Selective evidence and no testing - Herman and Chomsky's cited evidence for the PM is, to put it charitably, selective. For example, some samples are drawn exclusively from the New York Times on a single issue, or lean heavily on abuses of the Reagan administration. The authors do this because it's easy; it makes the conclusions of their work appeal to their target audience, and the media abuses often aren't in doubt. These case studies and narratives do not actually serve as strong support for their broad claim (and it truly is an extremely broad claim). A stronger model would hold well outside these settings - actual tests of the model's applicability, with limitations and consistent criteria of evaluation. The authors are not interested in articulating limitations or boundaries of their ideas; they're interested in promotion.

3. Inconsistent application - The model prevaricates on whether it can inform the interpretation of individual pieces of media. The authors want this both ways because it renders the PM and those employing it immune to criticism. In practice, the reasoning of the model is constructed from specific to general- a group of examples (selective ones whose interpretations appeal to the reader's prior beliefs) are deployed to make a general (across all mass media) claim.

4. Too many variables Breadth of explanation is not a benefit. Using several overlapping lenses that may or may not be applicable to individual cases or broader narrative contexts means that the PM is infinitely versatile; some part of it can be deployed to explain any message. The result is the equivalent of an overfitted statistical model; some lenses are redundant, the model will attribute meaning to things that don't matter, and is less informative than an alternative that doesn't claim such a broad scope. A detailed, specific accounting of, for example, different forms of advertising pressure, the details of how it is done, and where it's more or less impactful, is more useful than a "lens".

5. The elite interest loophole - Conversely, the most significant boundary condition for the model is the interests of the "elite", which are variously referenced as the political parties, corporations, and their managers. The authors assert that the systems of control presented by the model fail when there are disagreements among the elite, and the extent to which other groups in society are interested in, informed about, and organized to fight about issues. But how can users tell the interests of the "elite"? With such a wide-ranging and nebulous definition of elite interests, there's no way except by working backward from the media under examination. So if you want to believe that a media message reflects the manipulation of the elite, then it does, and if you want to believe that it doesn�t, then it doesn�t. Whether the model applies is based on the desire of the user to assign interests and control to nebulously defined elites. As someone observed earlier, it's like reading the will of God into weather events. Is this article or media narrative the way it is because of the delegitimizing propaganda control of the elites? Is it because the elites are in conflict? Is it because the elites don't care? Or maybe those dastardly elites are inflating the opposition, pretending that the marginalized non-elites have more strength than they really possess? The interpretation and application of the model depends on what the user wants to believe, rather than what is. This is a really unhealthy relationship to information.

6. Proof and Faith - I disagree with others that the model is delegitimized by its authors merely dabbling in genocide denial. The problem (articulated well by evilweasel) is you can use the same model to argue simultaneously for and against the presence of elite media control in any specific circumstance, as well as argue toward any interpretation of media. Presented with the same information, the model can be used to say that a media narrative is propaganda or not propaganda, legitimate or illegitimate, true or not true. At root, the propaganda model of mass media is a cipher that encourages users to believe whatever they want by giving them the illusion of insight. It combines well-known preexisting information about the media to spin an overarching and uninformative mythology that panders to its target audience�s preferences. Users of the model become less interested in engagement with specific information about the media under discussion - it functionally makes them less media literate. Because PM users can ignore or bypass specific causal or contrary information to argue generally from the intentions of the "elites", they become resistant to contrary information. This also makes people who deploy the model uninterested in good faith discussion; unfalsifiable claims of wide-ranging propaganda control can't be reasoned with.

All of these problems are why I said the following in the OP materials:

"A core issue with many people�s approach to media literacy is they think of it as finding a single, true lens through which to understand information and the world- a rule or worldview or rubric that they can use to decide what sources are good or bad. This is often couched in the language of universal skepticism, or seeing through the �mainstream media.� �I�m skeptical of every source� and "all media is biased" is bullshit. No one can be skeptical of every source equally, and all too often it means rejecting good sources that are just communicating challenging or unappealing information. Taking these positions actually makes a person even more vulnerable to disinformation, because disinfo campaigns actively target such individuals and prey upon their biases. The Intercept article I cited above and OANN will both tell you- they will give you the stories no one else will.

Similarly, a single theory (including, or even especially, �crit� theories that provide an overarching narrative telling you what sources are good or bad) will instead steer you toward messages that appeal to you for all the wrong reasons. There�s a reason these posts are a bunch of material pulled from different sources- a toolkit will make you much more intellectually versatile than a single mythological correct way to understand media."

I wrote that with the PM in mind, and the resulting cudgel approach to media that it entails is what people got probated for earlier in the thread. I wanted to wait to tackle the PM and similar mechanisms of media illiteracy until after we'd worked through a lot of more basic material. There are many more specific issues I could raise with the model (agency attribution and conspiracy, mass versus capital media as condition, implicit warrants, alternative models, misrepresenting other authors), but I'd much rather get back to my planned effortpost on Albert Hirschman's book on reactive and progressive rhetorics, a thing flaks actually know and use in trying to influence public opinion on policy. It�s old, it�s got issues, its examples are all in political history, but people can directly apply it to a source and draw meaningful conclusions- including sometimes that the author has read the book and is deliberately using it to write a persuasive message!

piL posted:
What? I've lost track of the thread because I don't care about the PM and I'm not going to read multiple books to find out more about it and make informed judgments about its implementation. Is it really a point of agreement that only falsifiable models are of value to a thread on media analysis and communication? Shannon-Weaver, as applied in post two of this thread is done so in a manner that would be unfalsifiable. It makes no predictive claims first of all, but to use it to make predictive claims about media intent and interpretation (vice signal accuracy) would require you to narrow a question so greatly as to be absurd.

Per the OP�s introduction, SW is a model of communication; it's a simplified representation that explains one set of relationships by sacrificing detail elsewhere. The example in the OP isn't real and isn't a demonstration of applying the model to media. It's intended to illustrate what the parts of the model are, in the same way that a classroom map of the state won't help you get across town. My principal goal in writing up the model was to provide a functional vocabulary for further discussion. Toward this end, and in keeping with the pluralist approach I describe in the OP, I do my best to be clear about any limitations or simplifications of the materials I provided.

At the same time, SW is an extremely falsifiable model. Alternatives to the relationships it describes can be articulated and tested. The relationships between concepts provided by the model are necessary to it. The relationships between parts of the PM are not. The lenses do not categorically apply in such a way that the pattern of relationships can be falsified. What's made SW remarkable is how universally it has held; its conceptualization of information as a stochastic error space is a foundation of all modern communication and information technology. (This is one of my favorite facts about the model, because it's a fully parallel expression of the logics of falsifiability in an applied setting).

piL posted:
There are entire swaths of questions a person could try and should try to ask about media that are by their very nature unfalsifiable without very rigorous and narrow definitions of all of the terms that would greatly reduce practical value.

Is this article well written?

Is this source trustworthy?

Is this article true?

What types of sources are trustworthy?

What are some ways to notice that I am being manipulated by media?

What rhetorical techniques should be considered appropriate in a particular format and which should cause doubt in the reader?

Does this collection of articles on a subject represent sufficiently diverse range of opinions to ensure that I'm well-versed on the arguments?

Is this an appropriate type of media to make and support this claim?

Should I spend $10 to access this media?

Does the funding source of a content generator affect the trustworthiness of the generated content?

Should I trust this content funded by this source?

Is this clickbait?

What is the author's intent?

How did the publication of a particular piece of media affect a particular situation?

All of these seem like appropriate discussion points for this thread and none of them have any place in any falsifiable model without defining very restrictive terms. Prescriptive models that address these questions could be generated or referenced and could be of value to this thread. They would by necessity be unfalsifiable and would be inappropriate for establishing claims of causal relationships or making prediction.

This list is a bit of a mess of prescriptive and descriptive questions ("is this article true?" is an empirical question that, yes, I think we can specifically interrogate). I provide tools to begin to address some of these questions in the OP material. These tools are useful because they do make causal claims and are based in defined terms or explanations. As Peirce, and Popper, and Shannon, and Weaver will tell you, information is useful to the extent that it can be falsified, to the extent that it is open to error.

fake edit:
Since I drafted that post you've expended a whole lot of words to indicate you're not familiar with the distinction between na�ve and sophisticated falsifiability. This model example you're presenting is, uh, creative, but has little to do with what's being discussed. We're not trying to solve the problem of induction here, and no one is holding PM to anything like that standard. We also do not have to pretend that all truthfulness is relative to observers in order to make specific observations about the mechanisms of specific media. The PM makes descriptive claims- it just does so poorly, for the reasons articulated many times over. Prescriptive claims have to rely on a factual substrate or, again, if they don't,

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.

The PM does not meaningfully inform prescriptive behavior unless you want to just argue against any media that exists under capitalism or in a political context. The people making that argument look like this:

Similarly, Al Jazeera is literally a state-funded foreign-facing apparatus that promotes coverage in alignment with the state that funds them, to the point of extensive criticism of their claims and, hey presto, the promotion of bullshit like the propaganda model of media as a way of enclosing their audience. The fact that Al Jazeera doesn't engage in the sort of active disinformation or conspiracy theory that RT does, does not mean their material is not propaganda.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 3, 2024

# ¿ Jan 3, 2024 06:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 17:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kavros posted:

Chomsky has done some of that transition to 'historical figure' rather than valued for his present day public commentary or intellectual analysis, mostly from his taking on (or having ascribed to him as a simplification of his views) some pretty unfortunate takes that just aren't going to do well historically, but will probably be asterisked as "well, you know, he was like in his mid 90s by then"

The Cambodian genocide denial was contemporaneous and he was in his 50s.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2024 00:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Toward a viable model of journalism