3 ms·

It’s unfortunate that there is not an “intellectual media network” that does all the hard public relations stuff for intellectuals and allows them to easily sha

It’s unfortunate that there is not an “intellectual media network” that does all the hard public relations stuff for intellectuals and allows them to easily share their work with a public audience. Since this doesn’t exist, you end up with people that are willing to play — and are good at — the media game, which usually means making outrageous attention-grabbing claims that are far outside the person’s expertise.

subroutine 3y ago
It seems like this used to be what the MSM would bring in experts to comment on complex issues in economics, foreign politics, history, health, science, technology, etc. before each station developed a significant bias due to top-down pressure from ownership or bottom up pressure to push narratives that paralleled the politics of their predominant viewership. Then it was public programming like NPR and PBS. But now almost every outlet finds partisan experts. It would be great if there were a truly neutral non-political source of expert commentary. But how can such an outlet sustain neutrality being subject to those same evolutionary pressures? HN is honestly doing a great job of this, but is a very different format than planned programming. Perhaps the key is to watch both sides and formulate your own opinion. Maybe it's better to know the biases outright than to rely on someone else to find neutral viewpoints. Of course the problem with that is, a huge amount of the population has no interest in hearing multiple perspectives, and only wants the 'home teams' talking points.
j7ake 3y ago
Are you suggesting something like scientific journals like Nature? Where there is an extreme barrier to publish in and often takes years to get anything out? Maybe you’ve pointed out a positive for these scientific journals.
- keiferski 3y ago
  No, I’m suggesting something that is more like CSPAN’s old BookTV, combined with a kind of talent agency and marketing firm.
pjc50 3y ago
The problem with this is that serious questions require difficult work, while what the mass audience fundamentally want is a verbal version of professional wrestling. With all the keyfabe and face/heel narratives.
twic 3y ago
The Conversation is/was an attempt at this: https://theconversation.com/global https://theconversation.com/global Initially, it was good. Then, it went downhill due to a relaxation of rigour; for every expert giving a scholarly overview, there was a junior academic pushing their particular line. On particularly polarising issue, outright gibberish slipped through (during Jeremy Corbyn's time as leader of the Labour party, for example). These days, there seems to be a scree of shallow articles about current hot topics.

subroutine 3y ago

It seems like this used to be what the MSM would bring in experts to comment on complex issues in economics, foreign politics, history, health, science, technology, etc. before each station developed a significant bias due to top-down pressure from ownership or bottom up pressure to push narratives that paralleled the politics of their predominant viewership. Then it was public programming like NPR and PBS. But now almost every outlet finds partisan experts. It would be great if there were a truly neutral non-political source of expert commentary. But how can such an outlet sustain neutrality being subject to those same evolutionary pressures? HN is honestly doing a great job of this, but is a very different format than planned programming. Perhaps the key is to watch both sides and formulate your own opinion. Maybe it's better to know the biases outright than to rely on someone else to find neutral viewpoints. Of course the problem with that is, a huge amount of the population has no interest in hearing multiple perspectives, and only wants the 'home teams' talking points.

j7ake 3y ago

Are you suggesting something like scientific journals like Nature? Where there is an extreme barrier to publish in and often takes years to get anything out? Maybe you’ve pointed out a positive for these scientific journals.

keiferski 3y ago
No, I’m suggesting something that is more like CSPAN’s old BookTV, combined with a kind of talent agency and marketing firm.

pjc50 3y ago

The problem with this is that serious questions require difficult work, while what the mass audience fundamentally want is a verbal version of professional wrestling. With all the keyfabe and face/heel narratives.

twic 3y ago

The Conversation is/was an attempt at this: https://theconversation.com/global https://theconversation.com/global Initially, it was good. Then, it went downhill due to a relaxation of rigour; for every expert giving a scholarly overview, there was a junior academic pushing their particular line. On particularly polarising issue, outright gibberish slipped through (during Jeremy Corbyn's time as leader of the Labour party, for example). These days, there seems to be a scree of shallow articles about current hot topics.