Comment by vishnugupta
4 years ago
> The nationalization of news and politics in a country of 330 million people is toxic.
This. I read it somewhere a while ago that prior to information revolution of late 90s onwards news travelled very slowly. Which meant people consumed more news of happenings around 50KM-100KM radius of their living place. And this reduced exponentially with increased radius. I could totally related to this as when I was in school (late 80s, early 90s) I read physical news paper that carried mostly my district and state news. Once a week I would be exposed to national news and maybe once a month to international news.
But now it's exactly reverse. I get minute by minute update on ongoings of Ukraine war which is half way across the world but have no clue about local politics. The net result being I get more enraged/impacted about happenings on which I have close to zero control but totally oblivious to things that I have control over such as reasons why there are so many broken roads in my vicinity.
>>I get minute by minute update on ongoings of Ukraine war
Worse than that, you get multiple often conflicting minute updates on on-goings <<insert current event of interest>> often filled with less and less facts and more sensationalism chasing maximum number of clicks, follows, thumb ups, likes, etc.
This is true if it is random person, small organization, a non-profit, or a "trusted source" main stream media outlet
In the race to own digital media, we've effectively replaced subscription fees and stable advertising revenue with the crumbs of said clicks, follows, likes, etc. The internet adage that "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" is apt here because outlets benefit more from being first than being right. This is a fundamental problem with digital journalism.
> Worse than that, you get multiple often conflicting minute updates on on-goings
And, strangely enough, that multiplier is usually exactly 2.
There should be serious scientific studies done as to why the magic American news constant is always 2. Then again, I'm sure people would claim those studies are biased and then complain about their funding.
I dont know what you mean by "multiplier is usually exactly 2"
in the context I would assume you are attempting to claim everything is a Republican or Democrat bent in a American political context, I would disagree with that.
but honestly there are more than 2 multiplies to read your comment so the irony is very dripping, but any story of any significance of popularity I can generally find all kind of angles, reports and "facts" about the event, be it war, an historical event, a mass shooting or a Supreme Court Opinion.
For example I read probably 10 different accounts for what the Dobbs ruling of the supreme court was, only a few of which was factually accurate and of those only a few of the accurate ones were "trusted sources"
1 reply →
I don't understand the term "American news constant".
I'm assuming this means number of sides in a debate? Like the left/right divide for example and no other sides exist?
I wonder if the fact that the local population has a murkier view of local events also has its beneficiaries.
I remember stories about local corrupt politicians trying to silence local outlets of uncomfortable news. Now they likely don't even have to.
Agree. With 330 million people I'm pretty sure you can find at least a few bad ones every. single. day.
I'm glad we give them air time.
Exactly. Let's find a few adults behaving badly, and amplify it. Do we really need to hear about every shooting or robbery, day after day? Can't be good for our mental health. But apparently there is a market for it.
I guarantee that corporate news is one of the top factors for Americans mental health crisis.
Unfortunately, there's not many people willing to pay to advertise that fact.
> apparently there is a market for it
There are/were markets for many dangerous and exploitative things that are illegal and/or regulated.
Allowing syndicated news-anchors to fuck with Americans en masse is more dangerous and more harmful than is properly acknowledged (at least, I haven't heard that view on the news since they last let Chomsky on).
Makes me think about those wise statements Elon Musk shared in the video of him at the Twitter All Hands zoom meeting. It was there that he contemplated the value of side stepping news outlets and avoiding their negative filters. He also questioned the reach of the negative social impact that receiving such negative news has on our wider society and the costs these news outlets place on us with their distorted focus.
1 reply →