4 ms·

The other thing that has happened is the internet and the free flow of information. It is no longer the case of manipulating 3-4 media outlets. People get their

The other thing that has happened is the internet and the free flow of information. It is no longer the case of manipulating 3-4 media outlets. People get their information at thousands of different places. I think its not really a loss of credibility, but the normalization of credibility based on a huge pool of information, rather than a restricted one.

onemoresoop 7y ago
I was referring to past actions of the US that proved to be unjustified and disastrous: WMDs in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.. This is related to the normalization of credibility based on information ubiquity, but I think it's mainly US's actions speaking for themselves. After the WWII us has become a policing force that more or less , with the exception of the Vietnam war, wasn't as active in foreign wars as they've been recently. The Vietnam war fuckup was largely forgotten or attributed to a different America that had changed. But the recent wars were also pointless and proved otherwise. Once again, US has the ability to change, but it will take a lot of effort to do so and will have to start leading by example.
Theodores 7y ago
The newspapers and their online equivalents get their information from the same newswires. You only have to manipulate those few original and allegedly reputable sources and the media echo chamber makes it appear there is a 'free press' with every journalist doing investigative journalism. In reality it is a copy and paste operation, newspapers just take what there is on the newswire and dumb it down a bit for their audience.
lioeters 7y ago
> I think its not really a loss of credibility, but the normalization of credibility based on a huge pool of information That's a great point. It's like the "credibility bubble" burst due to the increased inflow of information, and the public is correcting toward a more realistic valuation - which is to say, recognizing propaganda for what it is, and rightfully being critical of mass media. I'm also seeing that there are massive investments being made to regain the trust bubble through social media. Historically, the public seems to have short-term memory though..

onemoresoop 7y ago

I was referring to past actions of the US that proved to be unjustified and disastrous: WMDs in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.. This is related to the normalization of credibility based on information ubiquity, but I think it's mainly US's actions speaking for themselves. After the WWII us has become a policing force that more or less , with the exception of the Vietnam war, wasn't as active in foreign wars as they've been recently. The Vietnam war fuckup was largely forgotten or attributed to a different America that had changed. But the recent wars were also pointless and proved otherwise. Once again, US has the ability to change, but it will take a lot of effort to do so and will have to start leading by example.

Theodores 7y ago

The newspapers and their online equivalents get their information from the same newswires. You only have to manipulate those few original and allegedly reputable sources and the media echo chamber makes it appear there is a 'free press' with every journalist doing investigative journalism. In reality it is a copy and paste operation, newspapers just take what there is on the newswire and dumb it down a bit for their audience.

lioeters 7y ago

> I think its not really a loss of credibility, but the normalization of credibility based on a huge pool of information That's a great point. It's like the "credibility bubble" burst due to the increased inflow of information, and the public is correcting toward a more realistic valuation - which is to say, recognizing propaganda for what it is, and rightfully being critical of mass media. I'm also seeing that there are massive investments being made to regain the trust bubble through social media. Historically, the public seems to have short-term memory though..