3 ms·

The handwringing in this article over how a few publishers now control almost all distribution is also odd to me. Certainly I'm not thrilled by that situation,

The handwringing in this article over how a few publishers now control almost all distribution is also odd to me. Certainly I'm not thrilled by that situation, but why the pretense that it's a novel situation? People like Hearst and Murdoch have had massively outsize control over news distribution in the past. And before that, when the supposedly-outdated First Amendment was being written, control of publication largely accrued to whoever could get distribution into a given spot. These are not unprecedented challenges, and seeing an article like this casually discard their historical context makes me worry that it is in fact criticizing free speech for all the usual reasons.

woahdudebro 9y ago
You'd think someone so opposed to "fake news" as it's called would also be a fan of centralization. The mainstream news coverage of the 2016 election was objectively in favor of Clinton with perhaps the exception of Fox News and a few other small outlets, if you were to presuppose that her election was the "correct" outcome for democracy wouldn't that be exactly the direction you would follow?
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Cynically? I think they are fans of centralization, and they're trying to own the narrative by confusing what the word means. The emphasis on centralized publishers hides a meaningful difference between distribution and control. The article complains, not wrongly, that optimizing for engagement rewards clickbait and bad facts. But they're not actually centralized news sources, and it looks like the op-ed writer is ultimately lamenting the loss of centralized content control. As OP here points out, most of the article relies on naked assertion with no real argumentation, much less evidence. The standout to me is: > This is not a call for nostalgia... But back then, every political actor could at least see more or less what everyone else was seeing. Today, even the most powerful elites often cannot effectively convene the right swath of the public to counter viral messages. If it's not a call for nostalgia (or a legally-enforced return to the past), it's hard to see what it is a call for. The article repeatedly asserts that more true speech is useless against bad speech, so it can't be that. That lament for the 'most powerful elites' who can no longer convene "the right swath of the public" to propagandize to? Really doesn't seem like the writer is eager for everyone to have a voice.

woahdudebro 9y ago

You'd think someone so opposed to "fake news" as it's called would also be a fan of centralization. The mainstream news coverage of the 2016 election was objectively in favor of Clinton with perhaps the exception of Fox News and a few other small outlets, if you were to presuppose that her election was the "correct" outcome for democracy wouldn't that be exactly the direction you would follow?

Bartweiss 9y ago
Cynically? I think they are fans of centralization, and they're trying to own the narrative by confusing what the word means. The emphasis on centralized publishers hides a meaningful difference between distribution and control. The article complains, not wrongly, that optimizing for engagement rewards clickbait and bad facts. But they're not actually centralized news sources, and it looks like the op-ed writer is ultimately lamenting the loss of centralized content control. As OP here points out, most of the article relies on naked assertion with no real argumentation, much less evidence. The standout to me is: > This is not a call for nostalgia... But back then, every political actor could at least see more or less what everyone else was seeing. Today, even the most powerful elites often cannot effectively convene the right swath of the public to counter viral messages. If it's not a call for nostalgia (or a legally-enforced return to the past), it's hard to see what it is a call for. The article repeatedly asserts that more true speech is useless against bad speech, so it can't be that. That lament for the 'most powerful elites' who can no longer convene "the right swath of the public" to propagandize to? Really doesn't seem like the writer is eager for everyone to have a voice.