4 ms·

Established media is obsolete. Old media model: a couple thousand Harvard graduates produce and filter the content for billions of people (English speaking wor

Established media is obsolete.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
  >due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources I think part of the problem is that this is a fallacy. They give the impression that fact-checking and due diligence has been done when it actually hasn't. It's an appeal to authority, with CNN telling you they're the most trusted news source and showing you reporters on the ground and breaking news stories. Sure' indépendant news sources are unreliable, but so are mainstream news sources. The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now. Fox News, MSNBC, the NYT are relying on the fact that you don't fact-check them, that you don't do independent research. They're banking on you believing that they're trustworthy news sources in and of themselves. And it's just not true. It may never have been true.
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    "The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now" Bravo. I just wanted to add, critical thinking is also required(and always has been) I see articles that present a bunch of research, and then make claims that the research doesnt support. Ive even seen articles summarizing one paper, where the article completely gets it wrong. Recognizing the narrative/bias is important. Unfortunately, this is hard. Even more so with the variety of sources. Lately I have been trying to follow individual publications and authors to better recognize their bias/narrative. Of course now I am missing out on other viewpoints :( "And it's just not true. It may never have been true" Hence the corrections section I remember in newspapers. What if they didnt want to print a certain correction???
trendia 10y ago
The real filter bubble is not one that's imposed by Facebook, but one that's imposed by an individual. That is, people join subreddits or Tumblr groups and they filter out opposing views. Then they approach the "center" of that group, which itself is way outside mainstream. Eventually, they self-impose a sort of filter that limits the access to moderating opinions.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  Exactly. This isnt new either. I remember back in high school, my friends and I would sit around in a circle, in meat space. "War is wrong" And we would go around the circle: "yup", "absolutely", etc "Some other liberal talking point" yup, of course, so true....

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
>due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources I think part of the problem is that this is a fallacy. They give the impression that fact-checking and due diligence has been done when it actually hasn't. It's an appeal to authority, with CNN telling you they're the most trusted news source and showing you reporters on the ground and breaking news stories. Sure' indépendant news sources are unreliable, but so are mainstream news sources. The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now. Fox News, MSNBC, the NYT are relying on the fact that you don't fact-check them, that you don't do independent research. They're banking on you believing that they're trustworthy news sources in and of themselves. And it's just not true. It may never have been true.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now" Bravo. I just wanted to add, critical thinking is also required(and always has been) I see articles that present a bunch of research, and then make claims that the research doesnt support. Ive even seen articles summarizing one paper, where the article completely gets it wrong. Recognizing the narrative/bias is important. Unfortunately, this is hard. Even more so with the variety of sources. Lately I have been trying to follow individual publications and authors to better recognize their bias/narrative. Of course now I am missing out on other viewpoints :( "And it's just not true. It may never have been true" Hence the corrections section I remember in newspapers. What if they didnt want to print a certain correction???

trendia 10y ago

The real filter bubble is not one that's imposed by Facebook, but one that's imposed by an individual. That is, people join subreddits or Tumblr groups and they filter out opposing views. Then they approach the "center" of that group, which itself is way outside mainstream. Eventually, they self-impose a sort of filter that limits the access to moderating opinions.

ahartman00 10y ago
Exactly. This isnt new either. I remember back in high school, my friends and I would sit around in a circle, in meat space. "War is wrong" And we would go around the circle: "yup", "absolutely", etc "Some other liberal talking point" yup, of course, so true....