4 ms·

The American people are quite correct to be skeptical of a media industry corrupted by the ad revenue model, riven by partisanship and unified only by contempt

The American people are quite correct to be skeptical of a media industry corrupted by the ad revenue model, riven by partisanship and unified only by contempt for the people it proclaims to serve. Grounds for optimism that we are beginning to see through it

goodpoint 4y ago
The problem is that many are replacing unreliable mass media with even more unreliable facebook and alex jones.
- etchalon 4y ago
  No one trusts the media except for all the media they trust.
  - trelane 4y ago
    Yep. I'd really like to see this broken down by vendor. I'm not convinced those trusting Dems are counting Fox News as "the media" for instance.
  - deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
    “The media” has become coded language. People who boast that they don’t trust “the media” usually still trust in bias-confirming media. There are many media outlets that specialize in selling the reality that a large enough population wishes to be true. These are the outlets people who don’t trust “the media” are gravitating to.
    - HKH2 4y ago
      > There are many media outlets that specialize in selling the reality that a large enough population wishes to be true. Which ones don't do that? It's hard to find journalists who are not activists, or at the very least do not toe the line.
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
  - hnuser847 4y ago
    The survey question asks about trust in “mass media,” which most would interpret as corporate media outlets. I doubt survey respondents would consider stuff like AlterNet and The Daily Wire to be “mass media,” even though they report on the news. Here’s the exact survey question: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?” I do think the question should be clarified though.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  i once thought the same way, but I've since changed my view. The more crap we see / hear, the more we train ourselves on aggregate to be more skeptical of narratives we're fed
  - lamename 4y ago
    This might be true for you, and hopefully for me, but for the average person I'd bet more money on them just doubling down on <source of confirmation bias> than becoming more skeptical.
    - hunglee2 4y ago
      yes you might be right.
  - ManuelKiessling 4y ago
    Spend only 5 minutes with some of my neighbors, who somehow manage to cram the whole enchilada of how Bill Gates changes our genes through mosquitoes, how the Rotschilds rule the world, how vaccines contain metals, how Hitler was forced to do his thing by the US, how all Jews left Ukraine one week before the war, etc. etc. etc. into that short timeframe — and completely unasked for, of course. They just HAVE to tell it. More skeptical, my ass.
    - spacemadness 4y ago
      I think they gain a semblance of perceived control or perhaps a sense of superiority believing these things. Everyone else is wrong or part of the conspiracy and aren’t they clever for having figured it all out. When I run into folks like this they seem so happy with themselves.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        It's usually perceived control + sense of superiority + confirmation of existing bias.
  - 4y ago
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
amadeuspagel 4y ago
> The American people are quite correct to be skeptical of a media industry corrupted by the ad revenue model, riven by partisanship When media actually relied on ad revenue, it was not so partisans. Advertisers wanted bland stuff that appealed to everyone. It's the subscription model that drives partisanship. People want to pay to support stuff that they agree with.
- fcsp 4y ago
  There are a few [Citation needed] in here from my point of view
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    This is an isolated demand for rigor[1]. You didn't demand a citation for the claim that the media is corrupted by ads, and the implication that that's related to partisanship. [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
    - fcsp 4y ago
      > When media actually relied on ad revenue, it was not so partisans. Do you have a source for this? > Advertisers wanted bland stuff that appealed to everyone. Do you have a source for this? From my point of view a larger audience will drive the price up so I fail to see a correlation. Also, a broader audience leads to less targeted audience, so that seems cost-ineffiecient > It's the subscription model that drives partisanship. Do you have a source for this? > People want to pay to support stuff that they agree with. Do you have a source for this? You are framing a bouquet of personal opinions as facts here.
      - klipklop 4y ago
        >From my point of view a larger audience will drive the price up so I fail to see a correlation. Also, a broader audience leads to less targeted audience, so that seems cost-ineffiecient Do you have a source for this? I don’t see you posting any evidence “debunking” these claims. Just more of your own opinion. Pretty annoying double standard in arguing.
asdff 4y ago
Don't give them too much credit, they aren't reading Chomskey by and large or else you'd see a revolution.

goodpoint 4y ago

The problem is that many are replacing unreliable mass media with even more unreliable facebook and alex jones.

etchalon 4y ago
No one trusts the media except for all the media they trust.
- trelane 4y ago
  Yep. I'd really like to see this broken down by vendor. I'm not convinced those trusting Dems are counting Fox News as "the media" for instance.
- deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
  “The media” has become coded language. People who boast that they don’t trust “the media” usually still trust in bias-confirming media. There are many media outlets that specialize in selling the reality that a large enough population wishes to be true. These are the outlets people who don’t trust “the media” are gravitating to.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    > There are many media outlets that specialize in selling the reality that a large enough population wishes to be true. Which ones don't do that? It's hard to find journalists who are not activists, or at the very least do not toe the line.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
- hnuser847 4y ago
  The survey question asks about trust in “mass media,” which most would interpret as corporate media outlets. I doubt survey respondents would consider stuff like AlterNet and The Daily Wire to be “mass media,” even though they report on the news. Here’s the exact survey question: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?” I do think the question should be clarified though.
hunglee2 4y ago
i once thought the same way, but I've since changed my view. The more crap we see / hear, the more we train ourselves on aggregate to be more skeptical of narratives we're fed
- lamename 4y ago
  This might be true for you, and hopefully for me, but for the average person I'd bet more money on them just doubling down on <source of confirmation bias> than becoming more skeptical.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    yes you might be right.
- ManuelKiessling 4y ago
  Spend only 5 minutes with some of my neighbors, who somehow manage to cram the whole enchilada of how Bill Gates changes our genes through mosquitoes, how the Rotschilds rule the world, how vaccines contain metals, how Hitler was forced to do his thing by the US, how all Jews left Ukraine one week before the war, etc. etc. etc. into that short timeframe — and completely unasked for, of course. They just HAVE to tell it. More skeptical, my ass.
  - spacemadness 4y ago
    I think they gain a semblance of perceived control or perhaps a sense of superiority believing these things. Everyone else is wrong or part of the conspiracy and aren’t they clever for having figured it all out. When I run into folks like this they seem so happy with themselves.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      It's usually perceived control + sense of superiority + confirmation of existing bias.
- 4y ago
daniel-cussen 4y ago

amadeuspagel 4y ago

> The American people are quite correct to be skeptical of a media industry corrupted by the ad revenue model, riven by partisanship When media actually relied on ad revenue, it was not so partisans. Advertisers wanted bland stuff that appealed to everyone. It's the subscription model that drives partisanship. People want to pay to support stuff that they agree with.

fcsp 4y ago
There are a few [Citation needed] in here from my point of view
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  This is an isolated demand for rigor[1]. You didn't demand a citation for the claim that the media is corrupted by ads, and the implication that that's related to partisanship. [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
  - fcsp 4y ago
    > When media actually relied on ad revenue, it was not so partisans. Do you have a source for this? > Advertisers wanted bland stuff that appealed to everyone. Do you have a source for this? From my point of view a larger audience will drive the price up so I fail to see a correlation. Also, a broader audience leads to less targeted audience, so that seems cost-ineffiecient > It's the subscription model that drives partisanship. Do you have a source for this? > People want to pay to support stuff that they agree with. Do you have a source for this? You are framing a bouquet of personal opinions as facts here.
    - klipklop 4y ago
      >From my point of view a larger audience will drive the price up so I fail to see a correlation. Also, a broader audience leads to less targeted audience, so that seems cost-ineffiecient Do you have a source for this? I don’t see you posting any evidence “debunking” these claims. Just more of your own opinion. Pretty annoying double standard in arguing.

asdff 4y ago

Don't give them too much credit, they aren't reading Chomskey by and large or else you'd see a revolution.