11 ms·

yeah that's nice that you point out the irony in 'official' sources blaming an organized group. To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you

yeah that's nice that you point out the irony in 'official' sources blaming an organized group. To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. From what I understand and have experienced, popular 'news' television channels (Fox News in the USA, for example) do not give their audiences well thought-out, nuanced analysis of what's happening, but rather push a very "us vs them, it's all their fault, get angry" mentality, because that gets them more eyeballs for advertisers. It seems possible that social media influencers in Brazil have found that pushing the narrative of "it's the US government's fault" is more lucrative than "well, maybe we shouldn't cut down all those trees?" however, I do agree that there is no reason a priori to assume they're acting together, and that this is anything more than a side effect of incentives created by social media algorithms.

lobocinza 2y ago
The existence of organized groups trying to influence public opinion can be safely assumed including some working for the government. The issue is that government and their allies in traditional media quickly dismissed all forms of criticism as fake news by malicious actors. Which was a dumb move because many were valid criticism and easily verifiable. So this just increased mistrust in them. Television channels initially ignored the floodings because they were focused on covering Madonna, them they ignored the severity of the floodings, them they attacked valid criticism and ignored the contribution of volunteers and other non-state actors. No wonder why journalists from the biggest news channel, Globo, are frequently harassed on the streets. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI > To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. I think that is true in the short term but I believe that in the long term telling the truth is more sustainable. With all it's issues, the Internet is an improvement, it descentralizes information, people get to news quicker and with less filters.

lobocinza 2y ago

The existence of organized groups trying to influence public opinion can be safely assumed including some working for the government. The issue is that government and their allies in traditional media quickly dismissed all forms of criticism as fake news by malicious actors. Which was a dumb move because many were valid criticism and easily verifiable. So this just increased mistrust in them. Television channels initially ignored the floodings because they were focused on covering Madonna, them they ignored the severity of the floodings, them they attacked valid criticism and ignored the contribution of volunteers and other non-state actors. No wonder why journalists from the biggest news channel, Globo, are frequently harassed on the streets. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI > To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. I think that is true in the short term but I believe that in the long term telling the truth is more sustainable. With all it's issues, the Internet is an improvement, it descentralizes information, people get to news quicker and with less filters.