3 ms·
Of course those things are also needed, but that wasn’t really what my comment is talking about. Nor are they mutually exclusive. The issue I’m referring to is
by ceilingcorner 6y ago
Of course those things are also needed, but that wasn’t really what my comment is talking about. Nor are they mutually exclusive.
The issue I’m referring to is at the institutional level, not the individual one. As far as I’m concerned, when anyone with critical thinking skills analyzes the media, it all looks like propaganda. That doesn’t really help society get more accurate information.
- hammock 6y agoNot to split hairs, you started out suggesting that the world is destined toward a future where an institutional source of journalistic truth no longer exists. Then you propose how to force one back in. More interesting to me is, how to live better in a world without one?
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this myself, but to save the long explanation for another time, I’ll just say: I don’t think there is a solution, other than localism, or a highly transparent and rigorous centralized institution. The closer you are to a community and information, the better you can judge it for yourself. Not to mention the fact that most global news isn’t particularly relevant for most people. What that means in practical terms, I’m not sure.
- hammock 6y agoHistorically, if you wanted good information, you paid for it. Whether that was a king's intelligence network, or a peasant's daily paper. However in today's world the consumers of media are not paying for it. The advertisers are. So we end up with incentives that lean away from journalistic truth. Could it be that simple? If you want good information, you can still pay for it. Nation-states do this. Hedge funds do this. There is more data available on the open market than ever before. But the buy-side of that market has shifted considerably.