Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tele68 t1_j922lg4 wrote

"the choice to cover a story and what parts of the story to cover are always going to be a reflection of values."

This was always the highest power of the press. In the recent past, the choice to ignore a story, if agreed to by 3 or 4 press entities, meant the story was relatively "secret". The difference now is with the democratization of information.
So now people have a comparison with which to judge the choices made by any given dissemination, and to apply their own value system to the relative importance of any fact or story, and to judge other value systems in that realm.

Is this improvement or anarchy? Will this be permitted to continue?

31

captaingleyr t1_j92ij42 wrote

I mean it's never going backwards, but it is also anarchy to a large extent until social media companies make stricter rules but then people leave for the next new one where they can say anything they want with reckless abandon be it true or nowhere near it.

Gate-keeping served a purpose once upon a time, but it's gone now. People can still choose to look for credible press and they are out there, but it takes time and usually a subscription charge when all the lies and misinformation you can ever want is out there for free in seconds because it's all made up and a real news piece takes time and effort to be sure it is correct and accurate and fair.

8

chipped_laps t1_j92rc8x wrote

What purpose did gatekeeping serve?

4

upinthenortheast t1_j92xr8z wrote

I'm assuming this person is referring to journalistic standards. Newspapers didn't just let anyone write articles they had to be written by someone with a degree in journalism or something similar and then reviewed by an editor. In theory if the news organization posts something wrong their reputation was at risk, which hopefully would provide incentive to not post false information. This whole process sending actual people out to the scene conducting interviews collecting information is very expensive. Whereas someone just providing their own 2 cents on any given news event does not cost anything beyond the time it takes for the individual writer to write it. The high start up costs of starting a newspaper company even back in their heyday prevented just anyone from being able to run their own newspapers, Although there were definitely were some newspapers that were far less reputable, often refered to as a "rag".

13

tele68 t1_j937l14 wrote

You have to imagine in the past before resource scarcity and with high standards in humanities education - that there was more "honor" throughout society, including the editors of information. Gatekeepers now are as craven as any youtuber in mom's basement, just different chains of command.

If the audience or readers can find the strength to be more discerning and take responsibility for choosing their information, I'd say let it ALL flow.

2

captaingleyr t1_j942llv wrote

Not spreading misinformation, verifying facts before broadcasting rumors. No good is served other than ad dollars by not waiting for evidence or not publishing a story that can't be verified yet

1

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_j93eqy3 wrote

> Is this improvement or anarchy?

Neither. The same economic laws that govern mainstream journalism also cover "private" journalism, only with fewer restrictions because with fewer production costs, they don't need to appeal to a widespread mass audience, and can instead focus on political niches that are more loyal and less prone to seek out differing accounts of events

8

tele68 t1_j93lk1f wrote

Agree. Somewhere else in this thread I tried to say that. "Gatekeepers today are as craven as any Youtuber, just with different chains of command" or some such.

3

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_j93q2mg wrote

The difference is that at least with mainstream news, some countries require them to disclose when they are publishing a sponsored or embedded journalist piece, and they are often required to pay at least nominal homage to the facticity of an event. No such restrictions exist for online personalities, as far as I know.

3

ReneDeGames t1_j93tixw wrote

If you are directly sponsored you have to disclose as a online content creator, however, its not enforced well (tho it is enforced better than it was)

3

noonemustknowmysecre t1_j93iuzb wrote

> Is this improvement or anarchy?

Odd that you'd consider those diametrically opposed.

2

tele68 t1_j93l35k wrote

Yes. I don't. Poorly phrased. As an Anarcho-Stoic I should have said "Is this improvement or chaos" or...still needs work. Im not a scholar.

0

geetarzrkool t1_j965wd3 wrote

>Anarcho-Stoic

We really are living in a Monty Python skit, aren't we?

0

geetarzrkool t1_j96509v wrote

Ouch! I just cut myself on that edge. When will you be moving to an "Anarchist Utopia", and who will be paying for your internet so you can play on Plebbit? Those fiber optic cables and 5G towers don't install themselves.

−1

geetarzrkool t1_j964qbr wrote

"...permitted to continue", by whom, Dear? Who is issuing these "permits", exactly? Surely, you don't want the Govt. coming in to "fix" things?

The "News" is far MORE concentrated and LESS democratic than ever. The body count of journalists proves it. Don't ever mistake reeeeeee posts on Reddit and Twitter for actual objectivity, or a true "diversity" of viewpoints. It has never been easier in the history of Humanity to silence your fellow humans and "shape the Narrative" as you see fit. Things are and have only been getting worse and by no means "better". Now, I have to scrub my Corporately-Funded "Social Media" posts lest my Government-Funded "Social Credit Score" be tarnished. After all, there are consequences for "harmful" WrongTweet and they should not be permitted to continue...

0

tele68 t1_j969v11 wrote

I'm not stating any preference, but the US supreme court is getting ready to hear all about democratized information and whether it will be allowed or not.

The EU is also considering a clamp-down.

1