One thing I think is - it’s nearly impossible for the media to be all things to all people; because I think the difference between different groups (say Republicans and Democrats) isn’t what we believe, but how we believe it. The language and arguments we use. I loosely speaking mostly believe in free markets, capitalism, etc. but I only want to hear like professors of economics (right leaning or left leaning) talking about it, trying to talk about the free market with right wing relatives is crazy making, and I think these are the people mainstream media needs to appeal to.
I don’t know why this has changed recently, I’m guessing it’s just the fact that people have more choices, but I’d rather create my own “media organization” by picking and choosing from a variety of writers, than consume everything from say, the New York Times.
Even if I can blur my eyes and see that is objectively a good thing that the New York Times tried to appeal to a wider variety of groups, like, I’m not going to drive myself crazy reading through a bunch of ham fisted articles purely written in an attempt to seem non-partisan.
I want to read dynamic and diverse perspective on COVID vaccines, but informed ones, not an op-ed from RFK jr. on Ivermectin.
The narrative constructs of cause and effect, things like political parties, religion, myth, anything that's folk science, is dead. These are dinosaurs in an analytic-non-linear reality where chaos and game theory operate. Toss all those old constructs out.
You’re out of date/touch. We’re already looking at decentralized meaning, where meaning is both visualized and actualized and operable. Journalism and religion are part of ye olde ancient regime of cause and effect. Religion is just conspiracy theory. We need a new post truth form.
I would read what they wrote first, cursory nihilistic dismissal, demonstrative cursing. I don’t think that level of discourse belongs here, what they wrote.
In my view you’re flagging the wrong response.
Posters that extol the virtues of misinformation do not belong in discourse. Simple.
I disagree. And in a protocol form of comm, strongly disagree with any forms of policing discourse when the parties don’t appear to be aggrieved enough to merit it.
Interesting how little protocol is understood whereas site guidelines are enforced arbitrarily.
I'm the opposite of a nihilist. I think human beings are beautiful creatures, and it's wrong to misattribute to them. I think all human factors are trade-offs, and a balance of more and less intelligent humans are beautiful. I love that people love all sorts of things, and people clearly gestures everywhere love conspiracy theories.
But has this changed? (I assert a resounding no) I mean, Fox News is the most watched of the cable news networks, do they lie and hide information the least?
Like what timeline are we talking about here, when is the golden age of media not lying, it’s certainly not the 60’s and the Vietnam war.(hahaha ironically this is exactly when trust in the media and institutions was the highest, early 70’s)
No narrative is accurate, it's subjective cause and effect. We've known this since Aristotle, and neuropsychologists (Merlin Donald), neuroscientists (OKeefe, Kandel, Mosers), and evolutionary thinkers (Rosenberg) deal storytelling fatal blows.
No one trusts narratives in general now. They're illusions entirely. Retire them as communication.
I don’t know why this has changed recently, I’m guessing it’s just the fact that people have more choices, but I’d rather create my own “media organization” by picking and choosing from a variety of writers, than consume everything from say, the New York Times.
Even if I can blur my eyes and see that is objectively a good thing that the New York Times tried to appeal to a wider variety of groups, like, I’m not going to drive myself crazy reading through a bunch of ham fisted articles purely written in an attempt to seem non-partisan.
I want to read dynamic and diverse perspective on COVID vaccines, but informed ones, not an op-ed from RFK jr. on Ivermectin.