3 ms·
There was this period after WWII where newspeople risked their lives and dedicated themselves to telling the truth and working for the betterment of society. Th
by 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
There was this period after WWII where newspeople risked their lives and dedicated themselves to telling the truth and working for the betterment of society. There were organizations that took the fourth estate seriously and fought hard to investigate, educate, and speak truth to power.
But if you go back in history, other than about a three-decade blip, the media has never been trustworthy. It's always been schlock designed to make money, entertain, and push positions and ideologies, since the beginning, all the way up to today. The baby boomers tried to make this statement about the media being a force for good, but it was ultimately a pipe dream, and people knew it even in the 70s. Yet they kept trying to sell us this bill of goods about the media's inherent virtue and necessity.
The end result is modern generations just expect the media to be something it's not, and couldn't ever be for long. So of course they're disillusioned. Ever since Nixon, Americans' falling trust in society and widening political and ideological gaps have led to a status quo of anomie, cynicism and apathy.
And I think that's great! You can't break an addiction until you hit rock bottom. Society has been so fucking obsessed with the media for so long that they can't imagine a world where someone isn't spoon-feeding them garbage. But the less people trust it, the closer they are to realizing that they might need to check up on the shit they're eating to see if there's poison in it. "Mama broadcaster and Papa newspaper would never deceive me - we vote for the same politicians!!"
My hope is that in 10 years, people will finally get off their fat, lazy, stupid asses, and do some due diligence. Get some critical thinking skills and learn to research. Look into local politics and find out what's happening around them. Maybe actually learn what the positions of political candidates are and what the actual implications of them are. (Ok that last one will never happen, but a boy can dream)
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoSounds dystopian and exploitable, but I actually think near-future llms will be pretty good for this. You could get one to search a subject for 10 minutes and it could filter tons of information into a summary with links back to sources.
- delichon 3y agoAnd as Gemini famously demonstrated, tell you what its trainers want you to hear. LLMs will detract from critical thinking about politics at least until thoroughly jail broken.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ecoquant 3y agoMaybe, or maybe the previous ideological gaps are so far in the past that we can now only see the idealized version. You don't hear much about discrimination against Irish or Polish Americans these days, unlike "the good old days". People thought Kennedy could not win the Presidency because that would give the Pope too much power. Surely, there are many differences like this that have simply faded with time and have been replaced by new, equally ridiculous divides that will also fade in time when replaced by another set of ridiculous divides. When that happens, our divides today will sound as absurd as the Pope controlling a Catholic president just because they are Catholic. How about a near civil war between Catholics vs Protestants? How could that ever happen? Only in the "good ol days!"