The New Age of shamelessness

[southernhybrid]

My news/opinion channel is MSNBC; I wouldn't be able to watch Fox or One America for two minutes without losing my mind. I know people who get their news straight off their phone.

I can't even watch MSNBC. The last time I watched it was a love fest, softball throwing affair between AOC and Rachel Maddow.

I like AOC.

I like Maddow.

Yet it was cringe inducing and therefore unwatchable.

As for the smart phone, it's a blight on society as are internet news sites.

Read the headline and that's all anyone needs to know.

I will never stop repeating that we're in the intractable mess we're in because people don't take the time to sit down and take pleasure in reading books, newspapers, and news magazines.

I read the New York Times, and the Washington Post on my phone, and I used to read the Atlanta Journal Constitution on my phone, so I don't find reading the news on my phone to be a problem. Reading papers online means you get all the updates instantly without having to wait until the next paper edition. It depends on what you do with the internet. I also subscribe to Scientific American and I often read it on my phone if I'm out. SA also has some pretty good political articles and again, the online version gives you an opportunity to read updates and new studies.

I read books on my kindle, much easier than carrying around dead tree books, as the late DMB referred to them. When you're old you can adjust the font if you read online or on a kindle, so don't knock those things.

I like to watch Ari Melber on MSNBC. He's smart and imo, he's some good eye candy. A close friend mine agrees with me on that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem described in the OP is easy to see.

People always made up untrue claims to support their arguments:

The rurals have never in history before had an information mouthpiece. But they make up the majority in any country.

But in the good old days, when it was shown to be factually false, they felt embarrassment, because factually false claims were outnumbered by true claims.

So the false one stood out, and got laughed at.

People learned from their shame to remain silent, until they had checked that what they planned to say was true.

I'm not so sure. The very small demographics of journalists all had extremely similar values.

They would only call things out without that narrow span

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

 

[bilby]

I'm not so sure. The very small demographics of journalists all had extremely similar values.

They would only call things out without that narrow span

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

Perhaps. I remain distinctly underconvinced that flooding the world with bullshit is any kind of improvement, even if so.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not so sure. The very small demographics of journalists all had extremely similar values.

They would only call things out without that narrow span

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

Perhaps. I remain distinctly underconvinced that flooding the world with bullshit is any kind of improvement, even if so.

Whether it's an improvement depends on what your goal is. If you want more narratives and a richer political debate, then it's good.

If you want national unity and a less politically fractured populace, it's a bad thing.

Or as a friend of mine said when I was young and a militant atheist having yet another go at Christianity, "myths matter".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody tunes into the 6:30 network news. Where I live, newspaper readers are a distinct minority. Town used to have newspaper machines in maybe ten different locations; now they've joined the pay phones in nostalgia land. I read the paper, largely for the NYT crossword. but also for the limited news coverage. My news/opinion channel is MSNBC; I wouldn't be able to watch Fox or One America for two minutes without losing my mind. I know people who get their news straight off their phone.
The USA is a bitter, partisan society, which lacks the collaborative spirit necessary to address the big issues (especially the national debt, climate change, guns, civil rights, immigration.) This is why our President is D________ J. T________. I can't even stand to type his name.
This situation certainly won't get fixed in my lifetime.

What we learned after the rise of the Internet is that news has always been pretty shit. It was written by the urban elites and catered to their needs. I think that's the main political split today. The rurals have never in history before had an information mouthpiece. But they make up the majority in any country. And they've always been talked down to. And we're still learning how to deal with the new reality.

When journalists complain that journalism is dead. What they mean is that the time when getting a job at a magazine immediately made you a power player.... is over.

I think the main partisan split is between the old elite and the new rural elite. I think all the populists today (around the world) represent the voice of the rurals. It's the split between those who are trying to raise a family somewhere with few prospects, and those who split hairs about who's the most victim and therefore deserve special treatment in the laws.

I think we have access to more and better news than ever before. What we also have is more bad news than ever before. We have more of everything. And it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the quality from the crap. I think that's why we're getting ever increasingly divides between groups.

I'm not sure what to do about it though.

I think what journalists actually mean by "journalism is dead" is that real journalist do fact checking and issue redactions and corrections when needed and generally follow a code of ethics. These days, anyone can claim to be a "journalist" and just start spouting whatever they want on social media.

Also, in the US, the rurals only make up about 20% of the population.

I'd argue that the main goal of any journalist is to have a job. And they'd all happily compromise in order to stay employed. It's always been an extremely cut throat business.

When the printing press was first invented, clever printers, who printed news, quickly learned that if they just made shit up they'd save money on all the investigating. Which led to the witch panic and witch trials. Fake news is not a new thing.

We've always gotten the news we're willing to pay for. If we're not willing to pay for news... that's the quality of news we'll get.

 

[bilby]

I'm not so sure. The very small demographics of journalists all had extremely similar values.

They would only call things out without that narrow span

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

Perhaps. I remain distinctly underconvinced that flooding the world with bullshit is any kind of improvement, even if so.

Whether it's an improvement depends on what your goal is. If you want more narratives and a richer political debate, then it's good.

No, sorry, that's nonsense.

If the local sandwich shop sells only cheese sandwiches, then having the idea to sell marmalade, ham, or vegemite as well is good. Having the further idea to sell combinations of different fillings, like a BLT, might be even better.

But adding horse manure or nuclear waste or weedkiller to the list of toppings is not better. It's not only far worse, but is immoral and probably criminal.

News sources need diversity of opinions. A newspaper that says "Trump bombed Iran and that's great!" alongside one that says "Trump bombed Iran and that's terrible!" is useful diversity.

But adding one that says "Trump never bombed Iran!" is not useful, nor diversity, nor even opinion. It's just a lie.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not so sure. The very small demographics of journalists all had extremely similar values.

They would only call things out without that narrow span

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

Perhaps. I remain distinctly underconvinced that flooding the world with bullshit is any kind of improvement, even if so.

Whether it's an improvement depends on what your goal is. If you want more narratives and a richer political debate, then it's good.

No, sorry, that's nonsense.

If the local sandwich shop sells only cheese sandwiches, then having the idea to sell marmalade, ham, or vegemite as well is good. Having the further idea to sell combinations of different fillings, like a BLT, might be even better.

But adding horse manure or nuclear waste or weedkiller to the list of toppings is not better. It's not only far worse, but is immoral and probably criminal.

News sources need diversity of opinions. A newspaper that says "Trump bombed Iran and that's great!" alongside one that says "Trump bombed Iran and that's terrible!" is useful diversity.

But adding one that says "Trump never bombed Iran!" is not useful, nor diversity, nor even opinion. It's just a lie.

Good point. But that split is just a dichotomy. In reality, there's most likely many different true ways to interpret the story.

I'd also argue there is value in training people in figuring out what sources can be trusted. The previous paradigm people just naively swallowed whatever they were given.

I'm not saying it's better now. But at least we don't have the illusion of knowing everything anymore. That's a good thing

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's easy to see the horseshit coming from the other side. One's task is to recognize it on their own side. MSNBC is every bit as bad as Fox. It took me nearly four years of watching Trump TOS on MSNBC to figure it out but eventually, I did.

We can blame Republicans for acquiescing to the extreme right. Would the Democrats do the same if their political office was on the line, say for instance pushing a wrongheaded energy mix or taking the military down to dangerously low levels?
Politicians are there to make the hard choices when need be. We the people do them no favors by living in our media bubble, particularly if that bubble swirls in the social media toilet.
We share in the blame.

And in figuring out what news sources can be trusted; for me this was not only a recommended first class in college (Strategies for Lifelong Learning) but also in high school (Mass Media). Is this not the norm?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's easy to see the horseshit coming from the other side. One's task is to recognize it on their own side. MSNBC is every bit as bad as Fox. It took me nearly four years of watching Trump TOS on MSNBC to figure it out but eventually, I did.

We can blame Republicans for acquiescing to the extreme right. Would the Democrats do the same if their political office was on the line, say for instance pushing a wrongheaded energy mix or taking the military down to dangerously low levels?
Politicians are there to make the hard choices when need be. We the people do them no favors by living in our media bubble, particularly if that bubble swirls in the social media toilet.
We share in the blame.

And in figuring out what news sources can be trusted; for me this was not only a recommended first class in college (Strategies for Lifelong Learning) but also in high school (Mass Media). Is this not the norm?

There's some very wise words here. But is it worse now than before Internet?

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's easy to see the horseshit coming from the other side. One's task is to recognize it on their own side. MSNBC is every bit as bad as Fox. It took me nearly four years of watching Trump TOS on MSNBC to figure it out but eventually, I did.

We can blame Republicans for acquiescing to the extreme right. Would the Democrats do the same if their political office was on the line, say for instance pushing a wrongheaded energy mix or taking the military down to dangerously low levels?
Politicians are there to make the hard choices when need be. We the people do them no favors by living in our media bubble, particularly if that bubble swirls in the social media toilet.
We share in the blame.

And in figuring out what news sources can be trusted; for me this was not only a recommended first class in college (Strategies for Lifelong Learning) but also in high school (Mass Media). Is this not the norm?

There's some very wise words here. But is it worse now than before Internet?

Likely. More garbage in, more garbage out.

 

[KCFlyer]

My point is that there were more ways to tell a true narrative than would ever make it into a pre internet newspaper

I feel like the internet has made us the most ill informed society in history. More people get their news not from an internet newspaper but from social media. X (formerly Twitter). Truth Social, Facebook. And when those sites tried 'fact checking" since so many bold faced lies were being (rapidly) spread, the cries of "censorship" went up. So they resorted to "self fact checking". But human nature being what it is, if someone sees a post that they agree with and that supports their view, then there is no need to "fact check" to item - it supports your view so it's true.

Case in point - I loathe Trump...I have since he came out in the 80's. There was a "news" post of Facebook that Trump had eliminated the ban on bump stocks for AR15's. Sounds like something he would do, and I agree with the sentiment, but I still looked it up. IT turns out that it was the Supreme Court overturned that ban a year ago. Fake News. How many people see things like that and "share" it? And that was "fake news" from my side....but there is nothing "fair and balanced" on the right - it is equally, if not worse, shit coming from them.

Indeed, in an OAN "newscast" of the airline/helicopter crash in DC, that Trump blamed on "DEI" while bodies were still strapped in their seats in the river'. That led to "stories" that the helicopter pilot was a transgender woman. And this OAN news anchor was prodding a "saftey expert" to share some "conspiracy theories" he has heard. To his credit he declined, but they were looking for fodder to further the DEI excuse that the president gave. Fake News.

There is a lot of information available on the internet, for those who are willing to put in the work to investigate. But the vast majority don't do that, which is sad and dangerous as there is far more bullshit that populates the internet.

 

[steve_bank]

Over here my usual response to this is that the only thing that has changed is the visibility. 24/7 news with reporters like hungry piranhas looking for any hint of corruption.

24/7 reporting of human failure and corruption.

Politics over here in large part has always been about establishing a moral high ground of superiority compared to other politicians.

As to shamelessness, my favorite example is JFK having women brought into the WH. His family and the press new, but nobody reported it.

Followed by Clinton as governor being brought women and getting a blow job in the Oval Office.

Our western civilization goes back to ancient Greece and Rome.


I looked at 19th century print media that is available online, not all that different in terms of politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

.

There is a lot of information available on the internet, for those who are willing to put in the work to investigate. But the vast majority don't do that, which is sad and dangerous as there is far more bullshit that populates the internet.

Yeah, but isn't that the whole point of enlightenment values and a success of freedom of information?

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good point. But that split is just a dichotomy. In reality, there's most likely many different true ways to interpret the story.

We aren't talking about interpretation, we are talking about reporting. Yes, there can be multiple ways to factually report a story.

I'd also argue there is value in training people in figuring out what sources can be trusted. The previous paradigm people just naively swallowed whatever they were given.

As a reminder, the right-wing in America started thinking Fox News wasn't biased enough and started shifting to OAN and Newsmax which go from biased journalism to flat out propaganda... all because Fox News wasn't saying what the right-wing wanted to hear.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Good point. But that split is just a dichotomy. In reality, there's most likely many different true ways to interpret the story.

We aren't talking about interpretation, we are talking about reporting. Yes, there can be multiple ways to factually report a story.

I don't understand what you are trying to say?

I'd also argue there is value in training people in figuring out what sources can be trusted. The previous paradigm people just naively swallowed whatever they were given.

As a reminder, the right-wing in America started thinking Fox News wasn't biased enough and started shifting to OAN and Newsmax which go from biased journalism to flat out propaganda... all because Fox News wasn't saying what the right-wing wanted to hear.

So? What's your point? We can't force people to be free?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

.

There is a lot of information available on the internet, for those who are willing to put in the work to investigate. But the vast majority don't do that, which is sad and dangerous as there is far more bullshit that populates the internet.

Yeah, but isn't that the whole point of enlightenment values and a success of freedom of information?

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

Please! So many of our rights have been curtailed not due to overbearing governments, but because of sociopaths and psychopaths. We have tamper proof lids on medication bottles because of one person. We take our shoes off at the airport (is that still a thing) because of one person. Our heightened security for airplanes was caused by dozens of people. Our children have to do active shooter drills in school because of a handful of people.

Restrictions to our rights typically are in response to things that some very tiny number of people were responsible for. Right now, as in the past, media is being used to manipulate people. Not inform them. The manipulation is done either for money or power. In an open society, it makes it very difficult to stop this. Trying to moderate the truth is an extremely dangerous ambition.

But we shouldn't be looking at this manipulation and think, gee... isn't this great. Children aren't vaccinated, people took horse dewormer... because of social media... aren't we are living in a blessed age.

I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

It sure the fuck doesn't feel right. The problem is there is no real alternative. People are dumb in general. They aren't smart enough to know when they are being lied to. They can be easily manipulated, conned, scared into doing things or supporting things that aren't remotely in their best interest. You can lie to yourself about being able to teach everyone how to not be conned, not manipulated, but the truth is, people are not smart enough to repel attacks from all the sociopaths and psychopaths out there.

So we are left with an imperfect world that we will struggle to hold to together because we be dumb.

 

[steve_bank]

I think free speech in the 1st Amendment in the day meant being able to criticize govern mt without fear of rotation and restraint. Freedom of speech morphed to a germinal freedom of expression without much limitation

Fake news goes back to early 19th century Political overrates wrote fake stories about people in news media.

With the net it has become social anarchy. Up trough the 80s extremists and crazies were limited to newsletters. pamphlets, and books.


The term today is influences. Individuals on the net who are influencing language and behavior without any restraint. Some make a lot of money.

 

[bilby]

In reality, there's most likely many different true ways to interpret the story.

...and infinitely more false ways to do so.

The world is drowning in bullshit right now.

I'd also argue there is value in training people in figuring out what sources can be trusted.

Sure. When will that start happening?

The previous paradigm people just naively swallowed whatever they were given.

Same as the current paradigm. But previously it was largely true; Now it's almost entirely false.

I'm not saying it's better now.

Good. Because it isn't.

But at least we don't have the illusion of knowing everything anymore.

We absolutely still have that; It's just no longer even remotely accurate.

That's a good thing

It objectively is NOT.

 

[bilby]

And in figuring out what news sources can be trusted; for me this was not only a recommended first class in college (Strategies for Lifelong Learning) but also in high school (Mass Media). Is this not the norm?

The "norm" is not to learn much in college at all. About 65% of adult Americans never attain a bachelor's degree, slightly more than the percentage in the OECD as a whole, where about 40% attain such a qualification.

I have not heard of any such courses, and certainly not in high school; But then, I went to high school more than four decades ago, so a lot has changed since my time.

 

[bilby]

There is a lot of information available on the internet, for those who are willing to put in the work to investigate. But the vast majority don't do that, which is sad and dangerous as there is far more bullshit that populates the internet.

Yeah, but isn't that the whole point of enlightenment values and a success of freedom of information?

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

You appear to be mistaking libertarianism for liberty. In an effort to pursue liberty and democracy, we have diverted into a bizarre counterfactual world in which a core assumption is the anti-democratic idea that having power and wealth is what demonstrates an individual's worthiness to have power and wealth.

The lack of rules here is hypothetically freedom, but in practice it just gives people a voice weighted by their wealth and power. I can post literally anything on X (or I could if I had any desire to do so), and do can Elon Musk or Donald Trump. But whose xhits will be seen?

The whole system is riddled with positive feedback loops. Those who are heard, get heard. Everyone else gets nothing.