4 ms·

This explanation cannot stand history check. When broadcasting worked over radiowaves, and press required literal printing presses, the entry barrier to become

This explanation cannot stand history check. When broadcasting worked over radiowaves, and press required literal printing presses, the entry barrier to become a medium was several levels of magnitude higher then it is today, and consequently grip of corporate power was stronger. One may say this is why public had better opinion about media - because it was a closed club, or a caste if you like, and media's dirty laundry very rarely had a chance to appear before everyone's eyes. Not because media were better, but because consolidation let them sit on their pedestals unchallenged. And btw we should stop pretending that growing audience cautiousness towards mass media is some kind of problem.

origin_path 4y ago
Yes. Twitter is destroying classical media. Journalists claim to be neutral observers of reality, and when the only source of information you had about them was their short TV reports or newspaper articles, there was no other basis on which to disagree. People might have suspected some stories didn't get reported, or they might have occasionally read a story about something they knew a lot about and realized it was biased, but there was no solid way to prove bias. But now for years they have all been on Twitter and it is suddenly plain to see. Freed from the rules and conventions of their professional medium, they spot nonsense on Twitter and show just how poor their understand truly is. The illusion of impartiality is impossible to sustain like this, which is why the BBC has tried restricting journalists from Twitter, but it's just impossible. They can't stay away, and their credibility declines with every tweet they make.
unity1001 4y ago
Not at all. Then, and even until late 1970s, regulations prevented corporations from buying up local small media. Any local group could have their own radio, leave aside their own tv until 1970s. Now that the regulations have been removed, all of them have been bought up. So much that when the network owner starts running a story, the same story is run with the exact same script in all state, local networks. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/02/598916366/sinclair-broadcast-group-forces-nearly-200-station-anchors-to-read-same-script https://www.npr.org/2018/04/02/598916366/sinclair-broadcast-...

origin_path 4y ago

Yes. Twitter is destroying classical media. Journalists claim to be neutral observers of reality, and when the only source of information you had about them was their short TV reports or newspaper articles, there was no other basis on which to disagree. People might have suspected some stories didn't get reported, or they might have occasionally read a story about something they knew a lot about and realized it was biased, but there was no solid way to prove bias. But now for years they have all been on Twitter and it is suddenly plain to see. Freed from the rules and conventions of their professional medium, they spot nonsense on Twitter and show just how poor their understand truly is. The illusion of impartiality is impossible to sustain like this, which is why the BBC has tried restricting journalists from Twitter, but it's just impossible. They can't stay away, and their credibility declines with every tweet they make.

unity1001 4y ago

Not at all. Then, and even until late 1970s, regulations prevented corporations from buying up local small media. Any local group could have their own radio, leave aside their own tv until 1970s. Now that the regulations have been removed, all of them have been bought up. So much that when the network owner starts running a story, the same story is run with the exact same script in all state, local networks. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/02/598916366/sinclair-broadcast-group-forces-nearly-200-station-anchors-to-read-same-script https://www.npr.org/2018/04/02/598916366/sinclair-broadcast-...