Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

The Media in 2014 329

Posted by CmdrTaco 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This discussion has been archived.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 Media in 2014 More

The Media in 2014

Comments Filter:

  • Already there? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:20AM (#11146585)
    "most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia"

    Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?

    • Re:Already there? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:21AM (#11146598)
      toss in a open-source reference or two and you've got /.

    • Re:Already there? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rscrawford ( 311046 )
      Pretty much. The news is so heavily skewed to the left OR the right (depending on your outlet) that you have to go to several different sources to get even a glimmer of the truth. Even NPR, that one-time bastion of somewhat impartial reporting, has started sliding toward sensationalism.

      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)

        by ThisNukes4u ( 752508 )
        I find that google news is a good way to get a picture of many different news sources all at once, although it doesn't really help the fact that, like you said, many of those sources are skewed in the first place.

        • Re:Already there? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I find that www.csmonitor.com sticks to the who, what, where, why, and when questions as long as you stay away from the editorial content (which is as it should be). Unfortunately, they don't cover very much.

          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)

        by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @10:08AM (#11147068)
        Even NPR, that one-time bastion of somewhat impartial reporting, has started sliding toward sensationalism.

        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.
        • Actually, NPR was a bastion of left-think

          Define your terms, and provide examples. From a foreign perspective, NPR seems rigorously balanced. More importantly, they go in-depth on subjects that standard news organisations simply won't touch.

          Clinton's elimination of the Fairness Doctrine

          The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan, not Clinton.

          ...and now the Mob has seen through the bread and circuses, picked up javelins, and become bloggers.

          And how is your typical blogger any more informed or co

      • Re:Already there? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gilgongo ( 57446 )
        > The news is so heavily skewed to the left OR the
        > 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)

      by transami ( 202700 )
      "Pretty much. The news is so heavily skewed to the left OR the right"

      Perhaps the problem is that reality itself is becoming heavily skewed to the left OR the right.

      T.

    • Absolutely not (Score:2, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) *
      If you're one of those people who thinks that the US mainstream press doesn't report "the truth" and is completely "in the pocket" of corporations and/or government, then you're already part of the problem. I find the following excerpt from a story on the (ridiculously blatantly false) theory that Flight 77 really didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 extremely relevant:

      It is safe to say that the thesis advocated by Thierry Meyssan, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is a tour de force of obfuscati

    • Re:Already there? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by miu ( 626917 )
      Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?

      And it is not just "People" and junk like like that. Go to the cnn page and you will see the MOTW version of the news - stalkers and kidnappings and scandal. That stuff is very important to the people involved and is very sad, but it is not news - it's gossip. What little real news is present is like baby food, bland, mushy, and inoffensive.

      I really have no idea where to get good news - google news is the closest thing I've found, but I wind up wad

    • Why wait until 2014? It's already here [fark.com]!

    • Re:Already there? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Greslin ( 842361 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @11:20AM (#11148083) Homepage
      Hasn't it always?

      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.

    • It depends on which press you're talking about (Score:4, Informative)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @04:33PM (#11152492) Homepage Journal
      The medium is the message. Most Americans still get their news from television, the single worst medium for meticulous reporting of facts. Images speak far louder than words, and by its very nature television is a medium dominated by visuals that are edited for "visual impact" - so it should be no surprise that television news has become essentially infotainment.

      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.

  • Small problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:21AM (#11146593)
    Amazon and Google are already beginning to become cluttered with useless features (particularly Amazon).

    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)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
      Just because you've never used a feature that doesn't make it useless.

      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)

        by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) *
        I'm not knocking the features... I'm knocking the interfaces.

        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.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • posted recently (Score:2, Informative)

    by ats-tech ( 770430 )
    Wasn't this posted not to long ago?

  • RTFA? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:24AM (#11146622)
    98% of /. readers don't read the article. What makes you think they'll watch it?
  • But where's the section about Slashdot?!? Shurely Shome Mishtake?
  • its about how to turn your webserver into a screaming pile of goo.

    Step 1.) Create Monster Flash Movie
    Step 2.) Post link on popular news journal.
    Step 3.) Grab Fire Extinguisher and/or Turn on Halon.

  • Obligatory grammar pedantry... (Score:5, Informative)

    by altgrr ( 593057 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:27AM (#11146650)
    how big enterprises like google and amazon converged medias

    'Media' is the plural of 'medium'. Hence, 'medias' is nonsense.
  • "It ends with a sad view on which....most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia."

    Not sure how this is different from CNN et al now.

  • Irony is ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Richard Allen ( 213475 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:30AM (#11146674)
    That "journalistic ethics" will somehow be lost if The New York Times were to go away.

    What a claim! LOL!

    • Re:Irony is ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:38AM (#11146749) Journal
      I'll take The New York Times over Fox "News" any time. The former was badly let down by one reporter whereas the latter has made an art form of combining half-truths and lies to present what it calls "the facts".

      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? (Score:4, Informative)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @10:28AM (#11147296)
        (And of course this gets modded up)

        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.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
          So what you're saying is that Fox News didn't hesitate to cry "fire!" whenever there was the slightest opportunity whereas CNN, MSNBC, BBC News, etc took their time (a whole 15-30 minutes!) to verify the facts before making wild claims.

          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?
          • I'm not saying it's the "right" or "wrong" decision to make, as it's not that black and white.

            All I'm saying is that FNC has apparently made editorial decisions to have a lower threshold of qualification for reporting certain stories, to the "first" to break the story. This technique usually, indeed, resulted in FNC being the "first" to break the story. However, it also resulting in the occasional reporting of inaccurate or incomplete information; FNC usually indicated the information was not yet completel

            • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

              by kitty tape ( 442039 )
              The problem with that approach is that people are more likely to believe the initial reporting and miss or even willfully ignore corrections. Which is more memborable? Big glaring graphics and shouts of "We found them!" or the much more sober presentation of "Well, maybe we were wrong.".

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Bora Horza Gobuchol ( 585774 )
          > 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.

          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)

          by Vicsun ( 812730 )
          Here [foxnews.com] is an example of unparalleled Fairness and Balance as exhibited by FOX news; brace yourself, world, The Netherlands are the home of the new Holocaust.

          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.

  • googlezon.com (Score:2, Funny)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 )
    Damn, damn DAMN!!! [buydomains.com] I guess that domain parker will get rich instead of me now. >:-(
  • The medium is the message, [utoronto.ca], Marshall McLuhan said. I remember watching a film in high school and was baffled.

    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
    • "The medium is the message" also indicates literally that the communication medium through which information is sent affects how we interpret it. The information is filtered differently NOT only because, for example, we think print media is more trustworthy than electronic media. Because we cognitively use different processes to listen to the radio and watch TV, we interpret the SAME message differently. JFK won the first televised presidential election, but Nixon won the same debate among radio listener
  • Yes, I'm concerned about this issue as well. I've been wondering how to start getting my news from fake "documentaries" instead!
  • most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia

    As opposed how to the big three news media outlets today? See: last election cycle.
    • not just the big three...cable outlets have become howitzers of gossip and bias as well.
    • I think the difference is that current news outlets give everyone the same gossip and trivia whereas Googlezon/EPIC (as described in the film) give people personalizedtrivia and gossip. The larger point the film is trying to make is that if everyone has to hear the same trivia and gossip, said trivia and gossip must therefore be more important.

      For example, if J. Lo gets a new hairdo, its news. If Bob next door gets a haircut, its not news. In the new Googlezon world, it becomes news to the folks who care a

  • The media in 2014 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigHungryJoe ( 737554 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @09:50AM (#11146868) Homepage
    Will they completely failed the American people like the media in 2004? In other words, will they allow an arrogant, rogue administration like the failed Bush administration to lie, inveigle, and obfuscate their way into a war with Iraq?

  • I saw this flash video last week and wrote the following on my own website [urgo.org] in responce [urgo.org]to it. I figured it'd be relevent here so here's a version edited to be posted on slashdot.

    For the past year now I've been predicting that within the next ten Google will 'take over the world'. Most people I tell this two think I'm crazy and this will never happen saying that Google is the best company ever and they will never turn evil. I tend to disagree.

    Let me take just a few minutes to explain why I think this.

    Fac
    • The main concern of the piece seems to be that blogging will replace all centralized news sources. The statement is made that this causes all news to become trivial, sensationalist, narrow, and thoughtless. I have heard this theory in various forms regarding "free media" outlets before. I find it fascinating that this particular criticism comes most often from the Left, the people who claim to wish to empower the little guy, but every time something comes along that actually puts real power in the hands
  • There's a good English expression for this: Shitey load of Bollocks

    1. Be skeptical of future predictions where they say 'it becomes possible for anyone to publish anything anywhere'
    2. They forget ebay, News and Bricks and Mortar Giants who all have too important a part to play
    3. The timescale is a little optimistic.

  • Google Grid! (Score:2, Funny)

    by jokerr ( 618070 )
    Sounds interesting, where/when do I sign up? I just hope it comes before the MSMonopolyBoard!
  • I am unable to get any of the mirrors to play the flash thing, but the gist of the summary sounds awfully similar to what "they" said would happen to UseNet.

    Remember UseNet? The subscription-based, topic-partitioned peer-to-peer automatic mailing list thing? Everybody was going to subscribe to what they wanted, shut out what they didn't, and bring about the balkanization of society, unless the Y2K bug got us first.

    The reason this didn't happen was twofold. Firstly, the web came along, and people really

  • Could be good... could be bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @10:06AM (#11147036) Homepage Journal
    One of my favorite quotes from the Blade Runner is "Replicants are like any other technology. They're either a benefit or a hazard". Replace "replicants" with "media convergence" and we have a good cautionary phrase to keep in mind.

    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
    • And here I thought I use money to purchase goods and services from others so that I didn't have to waste time making them myself, and could instead spend my time pursuing things that actually interested me. I guess I was actually doing it to enrich my corporate masters. I'm now more informed. Thank you eno2001.
      • Don't be a fool. Typical of the American mindset is the inability to find a middle ground and to instantly polarize to one extreme side or the other. I didn't say that businesses should die and everything should be left up to the individual. What I said is that we should all be equipped (intellectually) to use our skills instead of letting them dull through slavish reliance on consumer goods and services. There is so much potential in all of us to do more, but we don't explore that.
    • 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

    • ...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).

      This is the difference between small and big business. Here I measure that difference in the number of investors (1 for sole proprietorships, infinitely many for publically-traded companies).

      Small business can act ethically, consider fairness, make "enough" money and no more, etc. (Note that this doesn't mean they will have good ethics; the co

      • Once you get over a certain number of investors, enough of them will be in it just for the money that the business cannot behave ethically

        This is the flaw that lies within capitlism. It is the reason that I argue that capitalism is failing for the same exact reason that communism did: human greed. The only thing that capitalism has over communism is better PR and "beads and trinkets" to hand to the natives. ;P

  • How many thinking people could you get to sit down and read a 400 page documented book that attempted to explore this theoretical outcome in any real depth?

    Now ask yourself: How many idiots can you get to watch an 8 minute Flash animation and be awestruck by its "powerful" revelations and insight?
  • >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.

    Wow, you tricked me! I was waiting till way after the "credits" for something interesting to think about.
  • Microsoft lost.
  • ..if you consider 2038 as forever.

    Q:Is there a FireFox plugin to delete cookies that last too long?
  • Does this seem like some puerile mental mastubatory experience to anyone else but me? Googlezon Hegemony? Come on, this won't happen for at least another 30 years. And it'll be called Amazoogle.

    Googlezon,... please.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • There's a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quila ( 201335 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @11:40AM (#11148348)
    most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia

    And how is this different from network news today?
  • If politicians are the inevitiable side effect of democracy then doesn't it make sense that a democratic media would create equally hideous monsters? That's the question he asks but he doesn't try to answer it. If news is as customized as he proposes then it doesn't make sense to classify news as one thing. My media would be totally different from someone else's just like people today have the choice to read The Globe and other tabloids. Media doesn't shape society as much as it is a reflection of our c

  • time to jump the shark: 5 minutes (Score:3, Funny)

    by cygnus ( 17101 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @05:07PM (#11153041) Homepage
    is it me, or did this animation start to become laughable right around when the narrator managed to spit out the phrases "Googlezon" and "Newsbotster" without laughing his ass off? i mean really, how much Vallium did this dude have to take to do that with a straight face?

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close