4 ms·

I have to some degree. Travelling abroad was an interesting experience and media was part of that. There is a lot published about this. Might be worth a bit

I have to some degree. Travelling abroad was an interesting experience and media was part of that. There is a lot published about this. Might be worth a bit of time when you have an idle minute or few. As a starting point, repeal of the fairness doctrine (Reagan) coupled with media deregulation (Clinton), transformed mainstream media. Today, access journalism, massive media consolidation, poor clarity programs (fact is poorly differentiated from opinion), and an AD driven culture make for quite the barrage of information, much of it contradictory when viewed as a whole. We may not be at the top, and sorting that kind of thing out is very highly debatable anyway, but we are up there. It's not hard to understand how very large numbers of us struggle to make sense of the information available today. Sidebar: There is struggling to make sense and say coming to a wrong, or very poorly supported conclusion. That's one potential. The other one is far more subtle, and that is being confused, being aware of it, feeling one isn't capable, or lacking in time, perhaps education, and seeking authorities to trust. That is more the kind of thing in play regarding vaccination struggles we see today. People quite literally do not trust public institutions because of the political games they have seen played, poor performance of government, and generally unclear mainstream media. It's been going on for a while now, and it's starting to really add up. (in my view, of course) End sidebar Intrigued? I was. Best way to start is to tune out for a while, say a few months. During this time, seek original documents, if you have a need to be informed, and you might not. It's nice to just tune out for a while, get grounded, sort of reset. When you do seek something, get original documents, say a report, paper, whatever it is. Then compare and contrast to media on the same topic. When I did this some time back, I was frankly shocked at basic things, such as elevating speculation to fact, or cherry picking from documents to emphasize something the authors did not intend. I don't have good answers other than to encourage people to use more diverse media sources and seek original documents where they are available and make sense to read.

eru 5y ago
Thanks for the answer. > We may not be at the top, and sorting that kind of thing out is very highly debatable anyway, but we are up there. OK, so it was just hyperbole. I would have had hoped for a comparison to eg Soviet Russia or PR China; or perhaps Berlusconi's Italy? See also eg https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-orban https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-orb... or https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-sultan https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-su... On the face of it, those countries seem quite a bit more 'propagandized' than the US with its relatively free access to information and competitive news landscape. American public institutions are still well working compared to eg many poor countries. (And we have to make that comparison here, since you made a universal claim.) Wikipedia suggests that the abolish of the so called fairness doctrine might have been a good idea _against_ propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Use_as_a_political_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Use_as_a...
- ddingus 5y ago
  It's not actually. Let's review a couple points: Competitive News Landscape The US media is owned by a few large entities. It does not do reporting from a labor point of view, as one example. Indie media is under active suppression, as is any meaningful dissent on a number of fronts. What many see as "competition" is actually theatre, and is also not inclusive coverage, again labor being a super easy example to see, missing important points of view. As for the fairness doctrine, I agree with it's impact being debatable, but doing that along with media deregulation was a one - two punch, leading directly to the death of investigative journalism and the rise of newstaiment and access journalism. This is now News Corp got started, birth of FOX, et al. State mouthpieces basically. We are currently prosecuting a journalist to death for exposure of war crimes and corruption, just to add on to what is not a ringing endorsement here. My point in this is the current state of the US in this sense is not good, and that has a clear impact on the people. You are attempting to make a not bad point, and implying a low impact on the people. Notably, neither of us is making a definitive good assessment. That aligns more favorably with my point above than your counterpoint here, and the context is people refusing vaccines and other behaviors one would associate with an unclear, propaganda laden body politic. There is a lot of BS being fired at people non stop and it starts right at the top from the consolidated media, by the way currently marked as authoritative by many entities online despite it having clear conflict of interest and a poor record on a number of fronts associated with those conflicts. (war machine, economic policy, media oversight (lol), health care policy) I've got reasonable support for that and the body of my comment. Finally, the overall assumption being challenged here is whether to blame the people, and I do continue to reject that idea for it being unproductive and toxic to all of us.
  - eru 5y ago
    > That aligns more favorably with my point above than your counterpoint here, and the context is people refusing vaccines and other behaviors one would associate with an unclear, propaganda laden body politic. Oh, people come up with unhealthy fads all the time by themselves. It's consistent with propaganda, but not really any evidence for it. > Finally, the overall assumption being challenged here is whether to blame the people, and I do continue to reject that idea for it being unproductive and toxic to all of us. Not sure about blame. The media gives people what they want, and people want drivel. The whole point of stuff like 'fairness doctrines' etc is paternalism: given people who 'know better' the power to give people media that's supposedly better for them than what they would have chosen by themselves. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... for an exploration of that dynamic. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/11/book-review-manufacturing-consent/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/11/book-review-manufactur... might also be interesting.

eru 5y ago

Thanks for the answer. > We may not be at the top, and sorting that kind of thing out is very highly debatable anyway, but we are up there. OK, so it was just hyperbole. I would have had hoped for a comparison to eg Soviet Russia or PR China; or perhaps Berlusconi's Italy? See also eg https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-orban https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-orb... or https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-sultan https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-su... On the face of it, those countries seem quite a bit more 'propagandized' than the US with its relatively free access to information and competitive news landscape. American public institutions are still well working compared to eg many poor countries. (And we have to make that comparison here, since you made a universal claim.) Wikipedia suggests that the abolish of the so called fairness doctrine might have been a good idea _against_ propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Use_as_a_political_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Use_as_a...

ddingus 5y ago
It's not actually. Let's review a couple points: Competitive News Landscape The US media is owned by a few large entities. It does not do reporting from a labor point of view, as one example. Indie media is under active suppression, as is any meaningful dissent on a number of fronts. What many see as "competition" is actually theatre, and is also not inclusive coverage, again labor being a super easy example to see, missing important points of view. As for the fairness doctrine, I agree with it's impact being debatable, but doing that along with media deregulation was a one - two punch, leading directly to the death of investigative journalism and the rise of newstaiment and access journalism. This is now News Corp got started, birth of FOX, et al. State mouthpieces basically. We are currently prosecuting a journalist to death for exposure of war crimes and corruption, just to add on to what is not a ringing endorsement here. My point in this is the current state of the US in this sense is not good, and that has a clear impact on the people. You are attempting to make a not bad point, and implying a low impact on the people. Notably, neither of us is making a definitive good assessment. That aligns more favorably with my point above than your counterpoint here, and the context is people refusing vaccines and other behaviors one would associate with an unclear, propaganda laden body politic. There is a lot of BS being fired at people non stop and it starts right at the top from the consolidated media, by the way currently marked as authoritative by many entities online despite it having clear conflict of interest and a poor record on a number of fronts associated with those conflicts. (war machine, economic policy, media oversight (lol), health care policy) I've got reasonable support for that and the body of my comment. Finally, the overall assumption being challenged here is whether to blame the people, and I do continue to reject that idea for it being unproductive and toxic to all of us.
- eru 5y ago
  > That aligns more favorably with my point above than your counterpoint here, and the context is people refusing vaccines and other behaviors one would associate with an unclear, propaganda laden body politic. Oh, people come up with unhealthy fads all the time by themselves. It's consistent with propaganda, but not really any evidence for it. > Finally, the overall assumption being challenged here is whether to blame the people, and I do continue to reject that idea for it being unproductive and toxic to all of us. Not sure about blame. The media gives people what they want, and people want drivel. The whole point of stuff like 'fairness doctrines' etc is paternalism: given people who 'know better' the power to give people media that's supposedly better for them than what they would have chosen by themselves. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... for an exploration of that dynamic. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/11/book-review-manufacturing-consent/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/11/book-review-manufactur... might also be interesting.