> Blaming the media is the easiest thing we do as people, and boy do we do it well.
I don't think we do that nearly as well as we should, and I can pinpoint the exact time and reason why things changed.
Once the technology to measure clicks and drive their own profit was invented, the media's business model changed from valuing their own reputation and level of social trust in conveying a reasonable take on the truth, to figuring out how to drive the most clicks/likes/shares to maximize their own profit.
And what news stories get the most attention? It's always either fear-porn or outrage-porn. The media drives their profit by either scaring or freaking people out about something and that's fucking up society mentally. The bad reactions they're driving to try and solve problems are going to harm far more people than the original problem they reported on.
There is no greater potential destructive force on the planet right now than the media. They could cause a global nuclear war by freaking people out about Putin or some other minor thug a little too much rather than taking a measured response. They could completely destroy civil liberties if they go a little too far into scaring people about the next crisis that emerges. They could completely destroy the economies of the world by pushing a horrendous reaction to climate change or other problems.
> Once the technology to measure clicks and drive their own profit was invented
Oh, that started well before the internet was open to the public. I pretty much blame it on CNN. CNN proved that news can be a profit center. Before that, news was not expected to make much money, it was considered more of a public service.
> Oh, that started well before the internet was open to the public. I pretty much blame it on CNN. CNN proved that news can be a profit center. Before that, news was not expected to make much money, it was considered more of a public service.
The "news" has been a business forever and profit versus journalistic standards has always been a huge point of contention. Pulitzer versus Hearst was such a business battle that standards started to fall apart and distrust in media hit a local maxima. That resulted in a big shift towards less sensationalism.
Television news itself is a huge contributor to lax standards, but that far predated CNN. What CNN brought to the table was news as a constant stream of information and near immediacy.
The web 2.0 days brought a new surge of Gotta Be First journalism that made information so much less reliable.
But we adapt to all of these things as media consumers. What people are generally bad at is not discerning opinion/editorializing versus hard news. That's where we need to become more savvy.
I don't think we do that nearly as well as we should, and I can pinpoint the exact time and reason why things changed.
Once the technology to measure clicks and drive their own profit was invented, the media's business model changed from valuing their own reputation and level of social trust in conveying a reasonable take on the truth, to figuring out how to drive the most clicks/likes/shares to maximize their own profit.
And what news stories get the most attention? It's always either fear-porn or outrage-porn. The media drives their profit by either scaring or freaking people out about something and that's fucking up society mentally. The bad reactions they're driving to try and solve problems are going to harm far more people than the original problem they reported on.
There is no greater potential destructive force on the planet right now than the media. They could cause a global nuclear war by freaking people out about Putin or some other minor thug a little too much rather than taking a measured response. They could completely destroy civil liberties if they go a little too far into scaring people about the next crisis that emerges. They could completely destroy the economies of the world by pushing a horrendous reaction to climate change or other problems.