3 ms·

> A major problem that the journalists face is that we live in an era where any person with a microphone can broadcast their opinion, and it turns out the thoug

> A major problem that the journalists face is that we live in an era where any person with a microphone can broadcast their opinion, and it turns out the thoughtful intelligent and intellectually honest types don't work in media outlets. People are going to start organising to listen to people of higher quality than journalists. Have to disagree with your last sentence there - from what I've seen, people in general want drama and someone to echo their existing opinions back at them. This is partly why there is so much poor quality journalism - that's what sells best, so that's where most of the money is. What we need is quality journalism (which does or at least did exist - I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history of that for example) but I fear what we'll get is any person with a microphone broadcasting their opinion, which means more demagogues and other shouty idiots spouting half truths. I mean, that's what we have already tbh so I don't see things changing for the better in the vacuum left behind by traditional media outlets.

roenxi 3y ago
> I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history... Based on who's fact checking? The Boston Globe's? For all I know the Boston Globe might be the bees knees, but institutions of journalism should go. It isn't appropriate to put trust in "The Boston Globe". That isn't a real entity with opinions and it isn't an entity that we can vest trust in. Names should be named, individuals should be identified and their record should available. The internet has allowed us to see behind the curtain. These institutions are full of people, and it is now possible and reasonable to scrutinise the individuals and their records in ways that were previously impossible. And the majority of them have records that are indefensible. As an example, pretty much every election I've seen suggests that the US body politic is a lot more sceptical of the military-industrial complex than the media wants to pretend, I don't think the bloodthirsty consensus would emerge anywhere near as readily - if at all - were people choosing their own talking heads like what is happening in the world of podcasting. That is materially important to the state of the entire globe.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  > "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there. In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and replace them with another bunch of people, and this will somehow yield better results? It's nonsense. You only have to look at Twitter to see what that world would look like.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      Twitter is absolutely chock full of bozos, and while you being able to filter them out is benefit to using the platform, the drawback is that many of them are greatly empowered by it. To follow your example, Trump's relationship with Twitter is well documented - maybe you wouldn't have had to filter him out in the first place if not for his ability to directly reach the public, or the public's avid interest in the kind of drama that he likes to involve himself in. I'm not talking about individual utility, I'm talking about societal effects.
      - 2devnull 3y ago
        My point is simpler: Twitter gives me the whole universe of content, with knobs to dial in my preferences. There is no alternative platform that allows that. And trump is just one of many word filters I use to prevent ever seeing the bozos. To me, they very literally do not exist.

roenxi 3y ago

> I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history... Based on who's fact checking? The Boston Globe's? For all I know the Boston Globe might be the bees knees, but institutions of journalism should go. It isn't appropriate to put trust in "The Boston Globe". That isn't a real entity with opinions and it isn't an entity that we can vest trust in. Names should be named, individuals should be identified and their record should available. The internet has allowed us to see behind the curtain. These institutions are full of people, and it is now possible and reasonable to scrutinise the individuals and their records in ways that were previously impossible. And the majority of them have records that are indefensible. As an example, pretty much every election I've seen suggests that the US body politic is a lot more sceptical of the military-industrial complex than the media wants to pretend, I don't think the bloodthirsty consensus would emerge anywhere near as readily - if at all - were people choosing their own talking heads like what is happening in the world of podcasting. That is materially important to the state of the entire globe.

danparsonson 3y ago
> "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there. In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and replace them with another bunch of people, and this will somehow yield better results? It's nonsense. You only have to look at Twitter to see what that world would look like.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    Twitter is absolutely chock full of bozos, and while you being able to filter them out is benefit to using the platform, the drawback is that many of them are greatly empowered by it. To follow your example, Trump's relationship with Twitter is well documented - maybe you wouldn't have had to filter him out in the first place if not for his ability to directly reach the public, or the public's avid interest in the kind of drama that he likes to involve himself in. I'm not talking about individual utility, I'm talking about societal effects.
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      My point is simpler: Twitter gives me the whole universe of content, with knobs to dial in my preferences. There is no alternative platform that allows that. And trump is just one of many word filters I use to prevent ever seeing the bozos. To me, they very literally do not exist.