3 ms·

Greenwald's suggestion that traditional media contains more disinformation than Facebook and that magazines distort body image more than Instagram is out of tou

Greenwald's suggestion that traditional media contains more disinformation than Facebook and that magazines distort body image more than Instagram is out of touch.

comfysocks 5y ago
Also, traditional media is an open discourse. Facebook is network where only chosen eyes see certain messages, thus an echo chamber.
mckirk 5y ago
I don't think he claims the traditional media contains more of it -- I believe he rather seems to imply that 'since the same problems exist in traditional mediums, the criticism of these modern platforms is misplaced'. I'd disagree though; Facebook has basically given every monkey a typewriter, and not even the most industrious spin doctor can match that amplification factor of dangerous half-truths and straight up lies. Of course traditional media also contains plenty of that, but there's a point to 'the dose makes the poison'.
- angelzen 5y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, with a caveat. Social media. I don't have a FB account, so can't to compare directly, but Twitter is pretty bananas too. Traditional media sold us the yellow cake story without batting an eye. Amplifying the dysfunction an order magnitude via social media is getting pretty scary.
pangolinplayer 5y ago
Dumb take. If Congress invites you to speak without fear of arrest and the main stream media hold you up as a darling then you are NOT a whistleblower. You are doing the bidding of power... If you are exiled to Russia (Snowden) or locked up without trial like Assange THEN you are whistlw blower and dangerous to power. This chick is a shill
LASR 5y ago
Yes. But more than comparing a set of specific A vs B, I think the differences emerge from 1. fundamental entropy of the medium 2. mode of delivery 3. ambient perception of consensus. Video is a medium that has far greater entropy than something static like a picture, or text. So creators have the ability to use all that extra space to create far more engaging content. Whether that leads to positive or negative outcomes is dependent on the content itself. The second aspect, the mode of delivery. Something like Instagram is immediately accessible. Flipping pages vs having it delivered straight to your eyes, magazines have no chance, even when you limit Instagram to only pictures. Lastly, social acceptance and the perception of acceptance. When something you see has tons of likes or shares or hearts or whatever it is, a magazine article with no cues on social acceptance has no chance. Now, I am very far from social media. But I enjoy content about science and tech. When I was younger, I learned a lot from Pop Sci/Scientific American mags. But now, going against science videos on Youtube - magazines have zero chance at delivering learning. My niece is constantly on Youtube looking at these, and at 10 years old, she can easily have a meaningful discussion with me about space or planets or whatever. So what we have is two things with entirely different levels of potential effectiveness. Whether you use each one for good or bad, that's up to the creator, moderators, platform hosts etc.

Greenwald's suggestion that traditional media contains more disinformation than Facebook and that magazines distort body image more than Instagram is out of touch.

comfysocks 5y ago

Also, traditional media is an open discourse. Facebook is network where only chosen eyes see certain messages, thus an echo chamber.

mckirk 5y ago

I don't think he claims the traditional media contains more of it -- I believe he rather seems to imply that 'since the same problems exist in traditional mediums, the criticism of these modern platforms is misplaced'. I'd disagree though; Facebook has basically given every monkey a typewriter, and not even the most industrious spin doctor can match that amplification factor of dangerous half-truths and straight up lies. Of course traditional media also contains plenty of that, but there's a point to 'the dose makes the poison'.

angelzen 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment, with a caveat. Social media. I don't have a FB account, so can't to compare directly, but Twitter is pretty bananas too. Traditional media sold us the yellow cake story without batting an eye. Amplifying the dysfunction an order magnitude via social media is getting pretty scary.

pangolinplayer 5y ago

Dumb take. If Congress invites you to speak without fear of arrest and the main stream media hold you up as a darling then you are NOT a whistleblower. You are doing the bidding of power... If you are exiled to Russia (Snowden) or locked up without trial like Assange THEN you are whistlw blower and dangerous to power. This chick is a shill

LASR 5y ago

Yes. But more than comparing a set of specific A vs B, I think the differences emerge from 1. fundamental entropy of the medium 2. mode of delivery 3. ambient perception of consensus. Video is a medium that has far greater entropy than something static like a picture, or text. So creators have the ability to use all that extra space to create far more engaging content. Whether that leads to positive or negative outcomes is dependent on the content itself. The second aspect, the mode of delivery. Something like Instagram is immediately accessible. Flipping pages vs having it delivered straight to your eyes, magazines have no chance, even when you limit Instagram to only pictures. Lastly, social acceptance and the perception of acceptance. When something you see has tons of likes or shares or hearts or whatever it is, a magazine article with no cues on social acceptance has no chance. Now, I am very far from social media. But I enjoy content about science and tech. When I was younger, I learned a lot from Pop Sci/Scientific American mags. But now, going against science videos on Youtube - magazines have zero chance at delivering learning. My niece is constantly on Youtube looking at these, and at 10 years old, she can easily have a meaningful discussion with me about space or planets or whatever. So what we have is two things with entirely different levels of potential effectiveness. Whether you use each one for good or bad, that's up to the creator, moderators, platform hosts etc.