5 ms·

> What is the overwhelming movement that has silenced them and cowed all these free people? Media consolidation. A massive percentage of the media in democrac

> What is the overwhelming movement that has silenced them and cowed all these free people? Media consolidation. A massive percentage of the media in democracies has been bought up by organizations who benefit from the suppression of free speech. No leader who wants to keep getting elected dares go against the wishes of these oligarchs.

wolverine876 3y ago
With the Internet, the media has diversified incredibly, including to non-professional information (for good or ill). I don't think media consolidation is an issue anymore. I was asking a different question; my fault for not being clear: My question was about the reactionary movement - what is it, how is it defined, what is its name (I use the term 'reactionary', but there is no name for it).
FredPret 3y ago
Who cares about the media? I can’t remember the last time I went to a news site or watched TV. Even when I do, they report on things that happen on Twitter (this was true pre-Musk, not sure now). I get my entire dose of other-people’s-opinions on Twitter and Youtube, from people I specifically picked out myself - the opposite of consolidation. For important things like the weather, financial news, and political votes, you’re better off getting the info straight from the source, which is usually available unbiased, free, 24/7, instantly, online.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  What about non-financial news, which is most of it? > you're better off getting the info straight from the source Unless you have incredible time, expertise, and access, I think that's a serious error. You can't do the research of a professional journalist - not only looking at the source, but calling (or emailing/texting) the principles and speaking to them, speaking directly to experts (without expertise you are easily misled by the primary source), researching all their claims. There's a reason Wikipedia only allows secondary, not primary sources as citations. Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you.
  - patrick451 3y ago
    Journalists are largely a joke. Just read something they write in which you are an expert: they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about and instead are just stringing together vaguely related words in barely coherent thoughts. > Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you. The primary goal of most major news outlets isn't to inform either, it's to present propaganda. See, e.g., the Trusted News Initiative.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Not only is that not my experience, I wonder where the 'joke' is. When people broadly dismiss enormous issues with nothing more than trendy contempt, it signals to me that they lack any real evidence or basis.
      - anankaie 3y ago
        Consider alternatively, that we do not owe journalists our trust, and that they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost. Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > we do not owe journalists our trust I agree! > they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. The amount of direct, personal, on-the-ground research is really impressive. > Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession. That's been complained about for a long time - it's nothing new and not 'destroying the profession'. But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. And yet journalism does amazing things. > Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
- samus 3y ago
  You're obviously not the target group then. The target group are the masses that consume traditional media.
- otikik 3y ago
  > Who cares? People older than you who don’t have anything to do other than go vote on Election Day.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Millennial vote share is increasing every year. Big media's influence is declining and has a time-limit. Already there has been big declines in trust and prestige associated with these businesses. According to this [0] peak voting age is 45+. The oldest millennials are around 40 now, so in a decade or two, you can expect a steep decline in big media - these companies are still in business at all. [0] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu...
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Big media's influence is declining and has a time-limit. Already there has been big declines in trust and prestige associated with these businesses. Disinformation and misinformation influence have had major increases. Is that coincidence?
- qwery 3y ago
  I think that's a fair question (and shouldn't be downvoted), but you're being na:ive. A couple of points: - The term 'media' is often applied with a broader scope than "traditional news media". - There are ads and suggestions on Twitter and Youtube. Do you specifically pick out those? - The people that you talk to or follow online get their information from somewhere. - You may be an exception. I'd wager you're less immune to mass media / the propaganda model than you think, but in any case the majority is (largely) responsible for election outcomes.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I'm not saying anyone has 100% control over their information sources. But it has been trending up sharply in recent decades. It used to be that a dozen or so talking heads told entire countries what was what. Today, the information landscape has exploded and splintered into millions of sources. For the first time, it's practical for every individual human to go directly to primary sources for most of the important things. And while most don't, many do, and out the many who do, some have their own platforms. Information dissemination is now more many-to-many than one-to-many. And while there is more bullshit than ever out there, there's also much more truth, and more angles of it being examined, and much less ability for small interests to control the whole. And that's fantastic.

wolverine876 3y ago

With the Internet, the media has diversified incredibly, including to non-professional information (for good or ill). I don't think media consolidation is an issue anymore. I was asking a different question; my fault for not being clear: My question was about the reactionary movement - what is it, how is it defined, what is its name (I use the term 'reactionary', but there is no name for it).

FredPret 3y ago

Who cares about the media? I can’t remember the last time I went to a news site or watched TV. Even when I do, they report on things that happen on Twitter (this was true pre-Musk, not sure now). I get my entire dose of other-people’s-opinions on Twitter and Youtube, from people I specifically picked out myself - the opposite of consolidation. For important things like the weather, financial news, and political votes, you’re better off getting the info straight from the source, which is usually available unbiased, free, 24/7, instantly, online.

wolverine876 3y ago
What about non-financial news, which is most of it? > you're better off getting the info straight from the source Unless you have incredible time, expertise, and access, I think that's a serious error. You can't do the research of a professional journalist - not only looking at the source, but calling (or emailing/texting) the principles and speaking to them, speaking directly to experts (without expertise you are easily misled by the primary source), researching all their claims. There's a reason Wikipedia only allows secondary, not primary sources as citations. Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you.
- patrick451 3y ago
  Journalists are largely a joke. Just read something they write in which you are an expert: they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about and instead are just stringing together vaguely related words in barely coherent thoughts. > Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you. The primary goal of most major news outlets isn't to inform either, it's to present propaganda. See, e.g., the Trusted News Initiative.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Not only is that not my experience, I wonder where the 'joke' is. When people broadly dismiss enormous issues with nothing more than trendy contempt, it signals to me that they lack any real evidence or basis.
    - anankaie 3y ago
      Consider alternatively, that we do not owe journalists our trust, and that they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost. Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > we do not owe journalists our trust I agree! > they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. The amount of direct, personal, on-the-ground research is really impressive. > Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession. That's been complained about for a long time - it's nothing new and not 'destroying the profession'. But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. And yet journalism does amazing things. > Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
samus 3y ago
You're obviously not the target group then. The target group are the masses that consume traditional media.
otikik 3y ago
> Who cares? People older than you who don’t have anything to do other than go vote on Election Day.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Millennial vote share is increasing every year. Big media's influence is declining and has a time-limit. Already there has been big declines in trust and prestige associated with these businesses. According to this [0] peak voting age is 45+. The oldest millennials are around 40 now, so in a decade or two, you can expect a steep decline in big media - these companies are still in business at all. [0] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu...
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Big media's influence is declining and has a time-limit. Already there has been big declines in trust and prestige associated with these businesses. Disinformation and misinformation influence have had major increases. Is that coincidence?
qwery 3y ago
I think that's a fair question (and shouldn't be downvoted), but you're being na:ive. A couple of points: - The term 'media' is often applied with a broader scope than "traditional news media". - There are ads and suggestions on Twitter and Youtube. Do you specifically pick out those? - The people that you talk to or follow online get their information from somewhere. - You may be an exception. I'd wager you're less immune to mass media / the propaganda model than you think, but in any case the majority is (largely) responsible for election outcomes.
- FredPret 3y ago
  I'm not saying anyone has 100% control over their information sources. But it has been trending up sharply in recent decades. It used to be that a dozen or so talking heads told entire countries what was what. Today, the information landscape has exploded and splintered into millions of sources. For the first time, it's practical for every individual human to go directly to primary sources for most of the important things. And while most don't, many do, and out the many who do, some have their own platforms. Information dissemination is now more many-to-many than one-to-many. And while there is more bullshit than ever out there, there's also much more truth, and more angles of it being examined, and much less ability for small interests to control the whole. And that's fantastic.