4 ms·

One thing is different now compare to 1920: Media. Up until 10-15 years ago the western government can easily control the media message via a few newspapers

by srcmap 12y ago

One thing is different now compare to 1920: Media. Up until 10-15 years ago the western government can easily control the media message via a few newspapers, tv stations, especially during a war. But nowadays, they are hundred of satellite channels all over the worlds, millions of people on every war zone with HDR capable cellphone. Search for Ukraine, Syria war in YouTube and one can easily hundred of hours of HD war flight video on all sides of the conflicts. It is not easy for US or British government to control the war messages anymore. It used to be when Bush mentioned WMD, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and BBC will repeat the messages over and over again. It much less the case now.

sudowhodoido 12y ago
I think it has just changed so that the media won't report something and then will try and discredit any amateur reports later. The BBC has many large gaps in its reporting at least and seem to favour an almost tabloid approach to some issues.
ArkyBeagle 12y ago
At least from a US perspective, it's worth reading up on the Hearst newspapers. That whole Pancho Villa v. Pershing ...thing? Hearst. Granted, this is not the 24 hour news cycle but there are numerous examples of newspapers drumming up panic.
netcan 12y ago
That's possible to overstate or overestimate. It's a complicated change. We have incredible access. But attention is still limited. Signal to noise is a problem when we are only partially engaged. 21st century confirmation bias in the form of information bubbles and internet speed rumor mils are a problem when me are more engaged, especially ideologically or politically. We see China exercising a seemingly significant hold over public perceptions with relatively simple to bypass internet censorship. There are subtler versions elsewhere. Even the shrill accusations of false flags, misdirections and complex misinformation may have some grains of truth. The world may not be as naive. But, it's not like we have a truth button even today.

by srcmap 12y ago

sudowhodoido 12y ago

I think it has just changed so that the media won't report something and then will try and discredit any amateur reports later. The BBC has many large gaps in its reporting at least and seem to favour an almost tabloid approach to some issues.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

At least from a US perspective, it's worth reading up on the Hearst newspapers. That whole Pancho Villa v. Pershing ...thing? Hearst. Granted, this is not the 24 hour news cycle but there are numerous examples of newspapers drumming up panic.

netcan 12y ago

That's possible to overstate or overestimate. It's a complicated change. We have incredible access. But attention is still limited. Signal to noise is a problem when we are only partially engaged. 21st century confirmation bias in the form of information bubbles and internet speed rumor mils are a problem when me are more engaged, especially ideologically or politically. We see China exercising a seemingly significant hold over public perceptions with relatively simple to bypass internet censorship. There are subtler versions elsewhere. Even the shrill accusations of false flags, misdirections and complex misinformation may have some grains of truth. The world may not be as naive. But, it's not like we have a truth button even today.