Slashdot Log In
The Media in 2014
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Dec 21, 2004 09:17 AM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
from the something-to-think-about dept.
Alexandre Van de Sande writes "Robin Sloan made a flash video as a "documentary" of how big enterprises like google and amazon converged medias and changed the way we see news by 2014.
It's a vision of what could be (or will be) the world with personalized media, made by peers, and the guy knows what's going on on those big heads. It ends with a sad view on which, althought some people get their news in a way they could never before, most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia. And that's exactly what they wanted." This will take a few minutes to watch, but stick it out to the end. I think there's a lot in there that you really should think about.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Already there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?
Re:Already there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Already there? (Score:2, Interesting)
I, personally, have pretty much given up on the news. I dunno; maybe by averaging between Alternet [alternet.org] and Fox News [foxnews.com], you might be able to get at what the news really is.
Re:Already there? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Already there? (Score:2, Informative)
I think the worst thing that can happen is getting all your news from one source. We need to at least expose ourselves to the viewpoints from across the spectrum, and especially to viewpoints from outside of our own borders if we're to see what's really going on. It takes alot of effort to be more
Re:Already there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, NPR was a bastion of left-think, until very recently when the right-thinkers kicked up a ruckus that public funds were fueling a partisan news outlet. That, and the fact that the Big Money from corporate sponsorships tends to frown on Left/Green perspectives.
Now, NPR seems to go out of its way to present bi-partisan views, except it often does so across multiple days' telecasts, a situation guaranteed to enrage the partisan occasional listener on either side. Of course, long-time lefty NPR listeners moan their network's`shift to the center, and it's tough to blame them.
With multiple strong, clearly partisan media outlets available now for both sides, it's unclear whether or not a venue which painstakingly ventures to be non-partisan can survive.
Journalism is dying. Clinton's elimination of the Fairness Doctrine opened the gates up to the New Media barbarian hordes, Blair/NYT and Rather/CBS poisoned the Emperors' wine, and now the Mob has seen through the bread and circuses, picked up javelins, and become bloggers.
Once, journalists presented the news, as delivered to them from strange and ancient teletype-oracles only they had access to. Now, everybody has their own AP/UPI feed, and more sources than Cronkite ever dreamed of. Once, everybody who became a professional journalist did so not because he wanted to present world events in a fair and balanced manner, but because he wanted to influence world events, crusade for a cause, and be a celebrity. Then, journalists had to pretend they had interestes other than their own in mind. Soon, they can cease pretending completely.
Within Ten Years (Mark My Words): Every major news outlet ceases delivering "the news" in primetime as they currently do, and instead they are all attempting to imitate the success of Bill O'Reilly on Fox, creating celebrity pundits who themselves are their own cottage industries. Right-wing pundits, left-wing pundits, gay-pundits, green-pundits, libertarian-pundits, techno-pundits, luddite-pundits, kid-pundits, septuagenarian-pundits, Baptist-pundits and Wiccan-Pundits -- celebrity wannabes nurturing book deals, all.
Parent
Re:You are uninformed. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's where journalists come in. They have a more marginal understand of the field (it's usually always worse than the experts, but th
Re:Already there? (Score:3, Interesting)
> right (depending on your outlet) that you have to
> go to several different sources to get even a
> glimmer of the truth.
You think the mass media is *polarised* too much!!? What kind of perception of political discourse do you have?
The problem as I see it is that the mass media simply repeat accepted "facts" about events with only tiny, tiny variations.
To illustrate what I mean, take the now ubiquitous 9/11. Apart from referring to some vague
Re:Already there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the problem is that reality itself is becoming heavily skewed to the left OR the right.
T.
Re:Already there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, anyone who thinks that this is anything new - or something whipped up by this newfangled Internet thing - needs to go grab a book called "The Image: A Guide To Psuedo-Events In America", by historian Daniel Boorstin. Written in 1961, it examines the history of public relations in America during the twentieth century. The book is mainly about how folks discovered that you don't actually need a real event in order to have news. Just create a *reaction*, regardless of whether it was justified by reality, and then report on the reaction.
Boorstin predicted that if things didn't change, the American entertainment and news gathering industries would eventually merge. Rather than accurately reporting the facts, the overriding goal would be to capture and maintain an audience.
Funny part is, when the book came out in 1962, Boorstin was traveling in Europe. Time magazine (IIRC) called him a traitor for suggesting that Americans would be so stupid to allow such a thing to happen.
Parent
It depends on which press you're talking about (Score:4, Informative)
There's still good journalism in America, but you have to read it, not watch it:
The New York Times [nytimes.com] is widely derided for having a "liberal bias," but there is still no paper in the US that covers as much of what is going on in the world today and presents as wide a range of intelligent and interesting commentary. The print edition is jam-packed with info, and while people complain about the fact that you have to register to get free news from NYT online, it's more than worth the money. ;-)
The Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com], despite the name is a scrupulously independent voice. Their print version is formatted not to bring you every ounce of news, but to pick and choose stories of interest from around the world. CSM doesn't focus on immediacy, which is quite refreshing in the era of instant news stories without any meat.
The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] takes flak because it represents the voice of The Man, but if you recognize that the Journal's bias is in favor of the capitalist marketplace, it's an excellent source of information. The reporting is solid and the range of coverage is impressive.
Getting back to the theme of going beyond knee-jerk immediacy, there are several excellent weekly and monthly magazines available in the states. I'm partial to The Economist [economist.com], which is not published in the States, and so provides much more coverage of the rest off the world. I happen to agree with most of their editorial bias, but I sometimes disagree with it. One of the nice things about the Economist is that they state their views in a way that allows you to separate the facts from their views.
I'm also partial to The Atlantic [theatlantic.com], a monthly magazine that explores a wide range of issues. Their coverage of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq has been superb for its depth, range of viewpoints, and clarity.
There are plenty of other great news sources in the United States. I merely listed some of my favorites. My point is that if you expect the television to provide you with serious news coverage, you'll continue to be disappointed. If you take the time to sift through a few print publications, you may be amazed at what's out there.
Parent
Re:Absolutely not (Score:3, Informative)
Since the quote in question used Flight 77 as an example, and I knew there would be readers who *actually believe* the conspiracy theories about Flight 77, and would respond to my post, I attached a pre-written footnote, labeled as such, brie
Small problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You may be able to get personalized news... but like 6 people will be able to figure out how to find the right page or widget to click on if Amazon does it.
Re:Small problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Operating systems, applications and services have all have core features that almost everyone uses but they also have other features that almost nobody uses, but that's not a bad thing. Whether its help for disabled users, a mail merge facility or whatever else, there are plenty of little-used features that make a huge difference to some people's use of software, and these Amazon and Google tools are no different.
You might never feel th
Re:Small problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon in the last year or two has become extremely cluttered and more difficult to use. Its hard to find features that you want, and other common features are missing. (try cancelling an order)
Google Groups are another case of something made too complicated. The interface is intrusive, distracting and makes it more difficult to get at the information that you want.
In 2014, (Score:2)
And for the record, I still read my morning newspaper.
posted recently (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA? (Score:4, Funny)
Lots about Google, Amazon, Blogger... (Score:2)
Basically, (Score:2)
Step 1.) Create Monster Flash Movie
Step 2.) Post link on popular news journal.
Step 3.) Grab Fire Extinguisher and/or Turn on Halon.
Re:Basically, (Score:2)
Wasn't that Squidwards line?
Obligatory grammar pedantry... (Score:5, Informative)
'Media' is the plural of 'medium'. Hence, 'medias' is nonsense.
Re:Obligatory grammar pedantry... (Score:2)
i.e., "the peoples of earth."
Re:Obligatory grammar pedantry... (Score:2)
and that's different from now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure how this is different from CNN et al now.
Irony is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
What a claim! LOL!
Re:Irony is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times did Fox claim that WMDs had been found in Iraq? It became a running joke in our house to guess how long it would be until they made their next false discovery.
Parent
Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
How many times did Fox claim that WMDs had been found in Iraq? It became a running joke in our house to guess how long it would be until they made their next false discovery.
Huh?
FNC is one of the several channels on in my office all day. They only claimed WMD were possibly found when a source within the government, military, or other source in Iraq claimed WMD were possibly found.
No. Really.
They never "made up" stories that WMD were found. And, in fact, trace amounts of WMD were found, several times. I'm not saying any of these constitutes finding WMD in the context of our initial claims, but trace amounts of WMD were found nonetheless. I'm sure there's some blog(s) somewhere that alleged to track "falsehoods" from FNC. I have never seen a story that was later found to be inaccurate (with regard to WMD, WMD trailers, labs, etc.) allowed to stand. And no, they don't just silently sweep it away, they often spent the next several hours saying that the initial reports were inaccurate.
The difference with FNC is that they reported on things much earlier and with less verification, resulting in less reliable news at any point in time, but MORE TIMELY news over an extended period of time. After watching FNC alongside CNN, MSNBC, BBCWORLD, and even Armed Forces Television, I recall extremely numerous times that FNC was reporting on a news item fifteen to thirty minutes, and sometimes up to an hour, before any other news outlet. Most of the time, the story was generally accurate. The other news organizations seemed to be more conservative about reporting. This sometimes came back to bite FNC, but ultimately resulted in much more timely information from FNC *if* you watched it long enough to see potential corrections. Reporting that could be termed inaccurate or incorrect was BY NO MEANS the norm, and was ALWAYS corrected/retracted if it was incorrect.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you saying that that's a good thing? That Fox is happy to put put any information, no matter if it's right or wrong, as long as it gets it out first?
Do I need to remind you that this thread started as a discussion about journalistic integrity?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite correct. And this is the problem. A good journalist - or a good news organisation - is cynical, even suspicious, when handed a story. They ask questions like - Can this be verified by a secondary (outside) source? As originally told, how does this story benefit the original source? Are there de
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
An exercise left to the reader is to spot all the inaccuracies and logical fallacies within. And yes, I do realize one story proves nothing; I'm just making a point.
Re:Like Dan Rather and... (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, it's not like Dubya's daddy didn't do a good job of making sure junior was out of danger by getting him a placement in the ANG where he was in no danger whatsoever, is it? I find the fact that he was onto a cushy number yet still failed to do what little was asked of him incredible.
That someone who showed such little regard for duty then i
googlezon.com (Score:2, Funny)
Re:googlezon.com (Score:2)
Prophesy Revisited? (Score:2)
Today, I'm more aware.
People are gullible as they wish to trust news from a higher source. That is, they will trust what they see on the TV because the information came from the TV. Never mind that the television or radio itself is not a guarantee of truth. Never mind that your neighbor's story may not be as strong in your mind, despite the fact that they are directly involved in the story and ha
Oh, good! (Score:2)
what diff? (Score:2)
As opposed how to the big three news media outlets today? See: last election cycle.
Re:what diff? (Score:2)
The media in 2014 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The media in 2014 (Score:5, Funny)
You mean similarly to how your grammar teacher failed you?
Parent
Could be good... could be bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Way back before there were books (pre-Gutenberg), reading was only for the rich. More importantly, information, communication and news were for the rich. If we don't watch it, the balance could tip that way again. Taking into account that computers have the potential to be used as a benefit or a hazard to mankind, we really should look at these sorts of things with a very cautious eye.
There are plenty of people here on Slashdot and in the real world who feel that access to information (be it movies, music, news, source code, what have you) should be limited to those who can afford it. Anyone who can't is obviously a failure at life and doesn't deserve access. These are people who want to see public libraries disappear. They are people who want to see open source/free softwaer die off or be made illegal. They don't believe it is their responsibility to help others. But the question arises... why do these people feel this way?
I think there are two distinct groups. The first group (much smaller in size, with a lot of money and therefore with much more to lose) are the people who own and profit from systems that are counter to the spirit of free and equal access for all. These are people who feel that they have the right to make as much profit from their inventions/productions/IP with no concern for fairness (ie, there is a point where you've made enough money and you can stop). These people have let the worst traits of humanity overtake them: greed and selfishness. They believe they are entitled to much more than their efforts are worth simply because they are somehow "better" than everyone else and "know more" than everyone else.
The second group are people who believe that if they support this kind of system, that they have a chance at eventually becoming just like the people mentioned in the first group. What a thing to aspire to! Can you imagine actually WANTING to be the kind of person who restricts and controls others based on money? Personally, I think it's some kind of sickness. The problem with this second group is that they have no understanding of how the deck is stacked heavily against them. They might be given a token "success" in a local sort of way, but that has far less value than either doing something that helps others in the world (free/open source software, FREE public libraries, volunteer work, etc...) or doing something personal for your family (building your own furniture, growing your own food, etc...).
The sad thing about the second group is that they are largely failures. Failed business ventures, money lost on investments that they don't understand that were managed by people who DON'T want to help them. These things are unavoidable if you approach life with the goal of getting rich. It is far better to approach your life with the view that you want to enrich your mind and the minds of those around you.
Money should take a back seat since intellect leads to adaptability and adaptability means you can live comfortably no matter what the circumstances. The key is in knowledge and intelligence, not money. I believe this is the message that we should be drumming into people's heads. But it's been drowned out by the ever bleating cry of the modern "capitalist" who puts the value of money above all else. How else can you explain the worship of the stupid? Pro wrestlers are heroes? George W. Bush is an intelligent man? Criminals who have a second occupation as musicians are idols? Reality television that bears no resemblance to reality?
Intelligence and access to knowledge are only problems to the people in group one mentioned above. They fear the concept of an informed and intelligent consumer/public. They are scared shitless of the idea that some people may awaken from their stupor an
Re:Could be good... could be bad (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is this different from network news today?
time to jump the shark: 5 minutes (Score:3, Funny)
Re:By then of course... (Score:2)
Sorry, I know that's not what you were talking about. I just thought that somebody would probably hhave to say it sometime.
(So anyway, would that mean that sanctions would come with a GPL?)
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's a sense of humor--he's making a point. Epic 2014 is the modern media version of 1984. I can honestly say I was horrified by this film and just how real its prophesies could be. After all, even if Google doesn't do it, you know someone else will; this is such a profitable venture a company would have to be crazy to pass it up.
Note to the editors (Score:5, Insightful)
"...some people get their news in a way they could never before, most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia. And that's exactly what they wanted."
And then: I think there's a lot in there that you really should think about.
Next time Slashdot thinks about posting some "news" from a sensationalist random guy's blog, please remember how hard you thought about this and we'll all appreciate it!
Parent
Re:Yahuh (Score:2)
Half?
I don't know about anybody else, but I think I need to do some more contemplative thinking about the average Slashdot user. 15%, maybe, but i don't know about half.
Re:Documentary proves its own point (Score:3, Funny)