4 ms·
Andrew Sullivan wrote a good piece a few months ago related to this [1]: >What the 21st century added to this picture, it’s now blindingly obvious, was media d
by IBM 10y ago
Andrew Sullivan wrote a good piece a few months ago related to this [1]:
>What the 21st century added to this picture, it’s now blindingly obvious, was media democracy — in a truly revolutionary form. If late-stage political democracy has taken two centuries to ripen, the media equivalent took around two decades, swiftly erasing almost any elite moderation or control of our democratic discourse. The process had its origins in partisan talk radio at the end of the past century. The rise of the internet — an event so swift and pervasive its political effect is only now beginning to be understood — further democratized every source of information, dramatically expanded each outlet’s readership, and gave everyone a platform. All the old barriers to entry — the cost of print and paper and distribution — crumbled.
>So much of this was welcome. I relished it myself in the early aughts, starting a blog and soon reaching as many readers, if not more, as some small magazines do. Fusty old-media institutions, grown fat and lazy, deserved a drubbing. The early independent blogosphere corrected facts, exposed bias, earned scoops. And as the medium matured, and as Facebook and Twitter took hold, everyone became a kind of blogger. In ways no 20th-century journalist would have believed, we all now have our own virtual newspapers on our Facebook newsfeeds and Twitter timelines — picking stories from countless sources and creating a peer-to-peer media almost completely free of editing or interference by elites. This was bound to make politics more fluid. Political organizing — calling a meeting, fomenting a rally to advance a cause — used to be extremely laborious. Now you could bring together a virtual mass movement with a single webpage. It would take you a few seconds.
There's an interesting discussion to be had about this. It feels counterintuitive to say that more democracy and more equality is bad, but at least in media I think it's proving to be true. I think liberal democracy is going to be challenged going forward all over the world because of this and it may be difficult for many societies to stay that way.
[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny...
- untog 10y agoIMO, the problem is that media decentralisation has led to responsibility decentralisation. When a newspaper or news broadcast gets a story wrong, it in itself is a massive story. When a little known blog does, it isn't noticed. So we end up where we are today, where accuracy and reliability die through little mini chips at the rock over time.
- erkkie 10y agoThe problem now is information overload. Effectively we've gone from less information, to good information, to too much information causing overload leading to less information. This makes it easy for bubbles to form by various biases.
- throwawayReply 10y agoSimilar arguments were made for why the clergy should conduct prayers in latin and why literacy isn't important. You can't just take information away or try to "curate" the information seen, that's what censorship is. We just need to learn to live in a world where everyone knows too much about others and where it can be difficult to tell the difference between truth and lie.
- erkkie 10y agoAgreed, the skill to differentiate good and bad sources and get your world view from a combined set of sources, each having their own (known and accounted for biases) is key.
- mmalone 10y agoYou have to be able to filter for credibility. Right now Facebook makes that hard. They could build tools and adjust their UI to make it much easier.
- throwawayReply 10y agoIf you filtered for "credibility" then any site predicting Trump would win would be filtered out. Is that a fair and democratic process or just technocrats doing their best based on their own fallible models?