5 ms·

I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't play

by msravi 10y ago

I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't play by the MSM's wishes) was not an isolated incident - it's happened in India (2014), it happened in UK (Brexit), and it has been repeated in the US. The fundamental driver for all three instances has been the removal of all filters on social media. The problem was that for too long the MSM used their power to filter content to its readers/viewers, and the filter was tuned by a group that wanted to script reality in a form that they wished to see come to fruition, even if their stand was hypocritical. So for example, you'd see a huge hue and cry in the MSM about how freedom of expression was being harmed because a right wing outfit threatened someone for speaking out against a majority religion, and yet, when someone spoke out against Islam, and Islamic groups placed a bounty on his head, the same MSM would just go silent. It is this blatant hypocrisy that finally got them. And now, with social media, for the first time people have access to unfiltered news and can form their own opinions. And for better or worse, the hypocrisy of the MSM is glaringly obvious for people who have access to multiple viewpoints on an incident - not just a filtered viewpoint. With the hypocrisy bare, it's basically been a revolt against the established media. And unless the established media takes it upon themselves to be more honest in whatever stand they take, this is going to repeat, because, people aren't fools you know.

reader5000 10y ago
Established media is obsolete. Old media model: a couple thousand Harvard graduates produce and filter the content for billions of people (English speaking world) by monopoly control on the 2-3 television channels, 4-5 major newspapers/zines. New media model: a media consumer can read the opinions and thoughts of 1000s of other people across the globe, and participate in the formulation of their own opinions, and receive feedback from others. The one-to-many top-down elitist control of opinion formation and transfer is dead. For better or for worse. Probably better. Especially when it appears to be the case that the main opinion media elitists care about is that people acknowledge them as elite.. The only criticism of the new media model I've seen is the filter bubble, but I feel that is overblown.
- jsymolon 10y ago
  Biggest problem i see, is how to pick the gold nugget from the 55 gallon drum of verbal vomit. Each viewpoint is "correct" from the authors viewpoint, knowledge, and information. Doesn't mean that it's closer to the truth in the wider world.
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    Perhaps that isn't really a problem. The firehose of social media gives us so many data points for the perceptions of others. In daily life, having a more accurate perception-ometer is a powerful thing.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      As long as one keeps in mind that the perceptions flowing through that fire hose are skewed in a way simply by virtue of flowing through that particular fire hose.
    - hga 10y ago
      At my age of near 56, I have found pretty much nothing in my mental toolbox to be more useful than a well honed BS meter, be it ordering things on Amazon or wading through our political swamps.
- mtberatwork 10y ago
  With the "old model" (leaving aside op-eds), I at least have some assurance that due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources. The "old model" has journalists in the field, on the front lines reporting the facts. With the "new model", I have zero assurance that due-diligence has been done. The burden of analysis and research is squarely on my shoulders. A fact is no longer a fact in that I can find any blog to support whatever position I wish to take. The blurring of opinion with news is "infotainment". The filter bubble reinforces itself.
  - freehunter 10y ago
joakleaf 10y ago
Unfortunately, unfiltered also means more "undistilled". The flipside of removal of filters of news on social media, is that we get a lot more low quality news based on unchecked facts. It is bad enough that the established media posts "breaking news" as fast as possible without taking the time to thoroughly consider the facts or give us a complete and rounded story. Everything is becoming "headline news". We get more and more during the day, and we don't have the same time to digest what we get, so we just look at the headlines, skip the reports we don't like, and skim the few that look interesting -- The echo chamber. We still need high quality sources that are trustworthy and able to filter out some of the "noise", simplify the stories to something we can digest without loosing details, and we also need to be exposed to news we don't like. News on social media is sensationlist and usually none of those things. In a world of more noise, more echo, fewer facts, and less details, we decide more based on gut feelings. I think some of Trump's result could be attributed to the fact that, he spoke more to the heart of people than Hillary did. E.g. the coal miners who voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back. At least I think, it will difficult to return coal to its former "glory" with the current energy landscape (e.g. cheap and plenty oil as well as cheaper alternatives), so I am doubtful that will happen. The whole idea of making America great again, returning jobs, and repealing trade agreements and Obama Care, speaks primarily to the heart of the people. We all love the good old times -- Especially, when we feel down and out of luck and life is difficult.
- msravi 10y ago
  I think you're underestimating the intelligence of people. We like to think that we're much better than the average Joe at separating the wheat from the chaff, but the truth is that the average Joe just isn't so bad at it either - or at least, isn't much worse than an editor sitting in his echo chamber. If I look at my twitter feed now, for example, I have a bunch of tweets criticizing a new decision of the government to withdraw high-denomination currencies (I'm from India), and for every such tweet there are others that are calling out the fallacies of the argument put forth. And vice versa. Gives me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion.
  - joakleaf 10y ago
raverbashing 10y ago
What event are you pointing specifically in India? (Sorry, not much familiar with events there)

by msravi 10y ago

reader5000 10y ago

Established media is obsolete. Old media model: a couple thousand Harvard graduates produce and filter the content for billions of people (English speaking world) by monopoly control on the 2-3 television channels, 4-5 major newspapers/zines. New media model: a media consumer can read the opinions and thoughts of 1000s of other people across the globe, and participate in the formulation of their own opinions, and receive feedback from others. The one-to-many top-down elitist control of opinion formation and transfer is dead. For better or for worse. Probably better. Especially when it appears to be the case that the main opinion media elitists care about is that people acknowledge them as elite.. The only criticism of the new media model I've seen is the filter bubble, but I feel that is overblown.

jsymolon 10y ago
Biggest problem i see, is how to pick the gold nugget from the 55 gallon drum of verbal vomit. Each viewpoint is "correct" from the authors viewpoint, knowledge, and information. Doesn't mean that it's closer to the truth in the wider world.
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  Perhaps that isn't really a problem. The firehose of social media gives us so many data points for the perceptions of others. In daily life, having a more accurate perception-ometer is a powerful thing.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    As long as one keeps in mind that the perceptions flowing through that fire hose are skewed in a way simply by virtue of flowing through that particular fire hose.
  - hga 10y ago
    At my age of near 56, I have found pretty much nothing in my mental toolbox to be more useful than a well honed BS meter, be it ordering things on Amazon or wading through our political swamps.
mtberatwork 10y ago
With the "old model" (leaving aside op-eds), I at least have some assurance that due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources. The "old model" has journalists in the field, on the front lines reporting the facts. With the "new model", I have zero assurance that due-diligence has been done. The burden of analysis and research is squarely on my shoulders. A fact is no longer a fact in that I can find any blog to support whatever position I wish to take. The blurring of opinion with news is "infotainment". The filter bubble reinforces itself.
- freehunter 10y ago

joakleaf 10y ago

Unfortunately, unfiltered also means more "undistilled". The flipside of removal of filters of news on social media, is that we get a lot more low quality news based on unchecked facts. It is bad enough that the established media posts "breaking news" as fast as possible without taking the time to thoroughly consider the facts or give us a complete and rounded story. Everything is becoming "headline news". We get more and more during the day, and we don't have the same time to digest what we get, so we just look at the headlines, skip the reports we don't like, and skim the few that look interesting -- The echo chamber. We still need high quality sources that are trustworthy and able to filter out some of the "noise", simplify the stories to something we can digest without loosing details, and we also need to be exposed to news we don't like. News on social media is sensationlist and usually none of those things. In a world of more noise, more echo, fewer facts, and less details, we decide more based on gut feelings. I think some of Trump's result could be attributed to the fact that, he spoke more to the heart of people than Hillary did. E.g. the coal miners who voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back. At least I think, it will difficult to return coal to its former "glory" with the current energy landscape (e.g. cheap and plenty oil as well as cheaper alternatives), so I am doubtful that will happen. The whole idea of making America great again, returning jobs, and repealing trade agreements and Obama Care, speaks primarily to the heart of the people. We all love the good old times -- Especially, when we feel down and out of luck and life is difficult.

msravi 10y ago
I think you're underestimating the intelligence of people. We like to think that we're much better than the average Joe at separating the wheat from the chaff, but the truth is that the average Joe just isn't so bad at it either - or at least, isn't much worse than an editor sitting in his echo chamber. If I look at my twitter feed now, for example, I have a bunch of tweets criticizing a new decision of the government to withdraw high-denomination currencies (I'm from India), and for every such tweet there are others that are calling out the fallacies of the argument put forth. And vice versa. Gives me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion.
- joakleaf 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

What event are you pointing specifically in India? (Sorry, not much familiar with events there)