7126
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread: The Russian shoe deepens
« on: August 04, 2017, 06:14:48 pm »
Hell man, it's not like that describes current and previous media any less. Half or better of the reason the concept of going (near) full net doesn't strike me as something that actually would be a downgrade is 'cause that helterskelter shit is exactly what the news is now, and with a few exceptions that stood out more because they were exceptions than anything, has been for more than my lifetime. Same damn thing except harder to land a lasting crotch shot when they need a kick to the nethers 'cause they got more money to blow shrugging it off.
News agencies haven't been accountable for shit for a long time -- when about the whole of your consequences is publishing a half-hearted retraction after the damage is done and you still get to roll in the same pile of cash, that ain't accountability, that's a farcical caricature of it. In practice they get held to an even lower standard than blogs often enough it's noticeable.
Meanwhile we're seeing what happens when the internet gets pissed and goes rabid over someone screwin' something up. Individuals and more local stuff may still be able to spin, but they got a helluva' riskier proposition in failing to. Unlike our media corps. There's downside as much as up on that front, but so far as actual accountability goes there really ain't a comparison. One you actually have a decent chance to reach out and touch hard enough someone notices. The other you ain't gon' get to do shit besides sending a letter to the editor that no one'll read.
... also I could definitely see the floodgates opening entirely on "propagandists" actually ending up a good thing. Saturation wise it can't really get much worse than it already is now, and just think on it for a second: What exactly the hell is a news agency going to do when the base of their consumers that give a damn about talking heads have direct feed to the ones they want to listen to?
They can double down or stay the course and eventually get buried by the masses anyway (and good bloody riddance), or they can finally get off their ass and be a fourth estate worth the friggin' title. Leverage the advantages pooled and structured resources with a bucketload of established connections give instead of being able to coast by on sensationalism more than anything.
We already have the damn filter bubble crap offline, anyway. It'd be easier to pop the bastards if they had less respect behind 'em and a wider spread of stuff to filter.
As much as it could stand to spend some time there, whatever New Media that will end up replacing it will almost certainly a downgrade. Blogs and social media are no more honest than corporate media, and far less accountable for their dishonesty, yet even now old media outlets have most of their 'journalists' do nothing but monitor social media. Quality goes down, but so do expenses. Besides, if media is full of propagandists now, just wait until everyone and their brother can get a soapbox to go with the voice the internet already provides. Best case scenario would be aggregators reposting people like @IvanSidorenko; an intelligent, well spoken person with good sources on the ground in Syria that he acquired mainly by being a Russian MoD mouthpiece. Worst case is people getting filter bubbled into a bunch of different alternate realities.Heh. No more honest, but more immediate, easier to crosscheck much of the time (which is a hell of a thing considering how much of a PitA that is)... and no, they'd be a lot more accountable than what we have now, so far as I can tell.
News agencies haven't been accountable for shit for a long time -- when about the whole of your consequences is publishing a half-hearted retraction after the damage is done and you still get to roll in the same pile of cash, that ain't accountability, that's a farcical caricature of it. In practice they get held to an even lower standard than blogs often enough it's noticeable.
Meanwhile we're seeing what happens when the internet gets pissed and goes rabid over someone screwin' something up. Individuals and more local stuff may still be able to spin, but they got a helluva' riskier proposition in failing to. Unlike our media corps. There's downside as much as up on that front, but so far as actual accountability goes there really ain't a comparison. One you actually have a decent chance to reach out and touch hard enough someone notices. The other you ain't gon' get to do shit besides sending a letter to the editor that no one'll read.
... also I could definitely see the floodgates opening entirely on "propagandists" actually ending up a good thing. Saturation wise it can't really get much worse than it already is now, and just think on it for a second: What exactly the hell is a news agency going to do when the base of their consumers that give a damn about talking heads have direct feed to the ones they want to listen to?
They can double down or stay the course and eventually get buried by the masses anyway (and good bloody riddance), or they can finally get off their ass and be a fourth estate worth the friggin' title. Leverage the advantages pooled and structured resources with a bucketload of established connections give instead of being able to coast by on sensationalism more than anything.
We already have the damn filter bubble crap offline, anyway. It'd be easier to pop the bastards if they had less respect behind 'em and a wider spread of stuff to filter.