OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
wjk,
yes - that is what I see too. There is so much "filtering" on what is reported. On one side it's understandable - as the sources for news and information are just overwhelming nowadays. That makes it almost necessary to have some form of higher commentary/analysis that helps get through the processing of the news. That again leaves more room for bias, and not just reporting straight facts. Keeping to just the facts goes back to the filtering again.
I think that we ultimately need to trust those who supply us with the news. This is naturally someone who "thinks like we think". Ultimately that will shut us out and divide us into groups with stronger opinions diverging from people having other sources. However, we cannot cover all the bases, all aspects and consider every side on every news item.
There needs to be some balance, and we need the challenge - meet other opinions. It doesn't cut it to be lazy, isolate oneself from news or other opinions you don't agree with - because ultimately you are called upon to take informed decisions and be part of democracy. Democracy demands some effort, work and being an active informed participant - if not you undermine the very mechanics of democracy - to some point.
I think we need the support of technology to keep us balanced in how we interact in democracies, just as we use technology to get more news - or any news for that matter. What I mean is that there are more forms of interacting in more structured ways that are more constructive and helpful in a democracy - not these simplified ways that just mimic how we would interact in any crowd/gathering with those yelling loudest or making a fuzz are the ones who get their way. Intelligent, structured and balanced interaction - where technology is a tool taking the interaction to a more effective level. The trust issue is then shifted more from the source to the technology and model. If we can trust the model, the fundamental mathematics/mechanics and philosophy behind the technology - then we can rely more on fair interaction and participating in more effective manners to democracy.
I am a strong supporter of things like e-democracy and representative direct democracy as a transition to direct democracy. I think getting rid of "politicians", "political parties", de facto oligarchy and nepotism - and having democratic models that we trust in place for these - this is how democracy should evolve. There are tons of research papers on how to avoid electronic voting fraud etc. on Citeseer, and in crisis situations it's always possible to have elected counsels who will "be on watch" for a given term as backup solutions. Interaction points can be spread to ATMs, gas stations etc. Every practical problem can be overcome, and that makes e-democracy a possibility.
It is possible to have something like representative direct democracy and de facto e-democracy already today. In some countries they already have started - and I do think it's the future. Plain and simple discussion forums like this one or simple polls are not effective in withstanding sabotaging from single disruptive agents or organized sabotage. But there are models for avoiding the pitfalls and getting stronger structures that also cater for defending against attacks. I do not favour exclusion - but think that the design of models should be such that attacks are not effective - nullifying them. That means deflecting attacks on the model, service and functionality itself - not the opinions expressed. One of the cornerstones is having the best possible identification scheme - which needs to be at least as good as the identification used in today's voting systems - but preferably a better identification scheme.
I also see that the news gathering itself will change from the funneled journalism from news organizations into more user contributed content, and merit-/trust-based systems. That does not mean that organized news or journalists would be unnecessary, they would just contribute differently - and into a more balanced model where the main trust lies with the democratic model - where news and information is a central piece we need to protect - since our informed participation is the central piece in any democracy.
Some might say "it's nuts" to think about progress and such profound changes which lies quite some time ahead, but actually some of these changes are completely doable even today. For a trustworthy and robust interaction, information and voting platform - that has not been fully researched nor attempted - yet...
Some informative links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiteSeer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collactive (example of organized attackers)
yes - that is what I see too. There is so much "filtering" on what is reported. On one side it's understandable - as the sources for news and information are just overwhelming nowadays. That makes it almost necessary to have some form of higher commentary/analysis that helps get through the processing of the news. That again leaves more room for bias, and not just reporting straight facts. Keeping to just the facts goes back to the filtering again.
I think that we ultimately need to trust those who supply us with the news. This is naturally someone who "thinks like we think". Ultimately that will shut us out and divide us into groups with stronger opinions diverging from people having other sources. However, we cannot cover all the bases, all aspects and consider every side on every news item.
There needs to be some balance, and we need the challenge - meet other opinions. It doesn't cut it to be lazy, isolate oneself from news or other opinions you don't agree with - because ultimately you are called upon to take informed decisions and be part of democracy. Democracy demands some effort, work and being an active informed participant - if not you undermine the very mechanics of democracy - to some point.
I think we need the support of technology to keep us balanced in how we interact in democracies, just as we use technology to get more news - or any news for that matter. What I mean is that there are more forms of interacting in more structured ways that are more constructive and helpful in a democracy - not these simplified ways that just mimic how we would interact in any crowd/gathering with those yelling loudest or making a fuzz are the ones who get their way. Intelligent, structured and balanced interaction - where technology is a tool taking the interaction to a more effective level. The trust issue is then shifted more from the source to the technology and model. If we can trust the model, the fundamental mathematics/mechanics and philosophy behind the technology - then we can rely more on fair interaction and participating in more effective manners to democracy.
I am a strong supporter of things like e-democracy and representative direct democracy as a transition to direct democracy. I think getting rid of "politicians", "political parties", de facto oligarchy and nepotism - and having democratic models that we trust in place for these - this is how democracy should evolve. There are tons of research papers on how to avoid electronic voting fraud etc. on Citeseer, and in crisis situations it's always possible to have elected counsels who will "be on watch" for a given term as backup solutions. Interaction points can be spread to ATMs, gas stations etc. Every practical problem can be overcome, and that makes e-democracy a possibility.
It is possible to have something like representative direct democracy and de facto e-democracy already today. In some countries they already have started - and I do think it's the future. Plain and simple discussion forums like this one or simple polls are not effective in withstanding sabotaging from single disruptive agents or organized sabotage. But there are models for avoiding the pitfalls and getting stronger structures that also cater for defending against attacks. I do not favour exclusion - but think that the design of models should be such that attacks are not effective - nullifying them. That means deflecting attacks on the model, service and functionality itself - not the opinions expressed. One of the cornerstones is having the best possible identification scheme - which needs to be at least as good as the identification used in today's voting systems - but preferably a better identification scheme.
I also see that the news gathering itself will change from the funneled journalism from news organizations into more user contributed content, and merit-/trust-based systems. That does not mean that organized news or journalists would be unnecessary, they would just contribute differently - and into a more balanced model where the main trust lies with the democratic model - where news and information is a central piece we need to protect - since our informed participation is the central piece in any democracy.
Some might say "it's nuts" to think about progress and such profound changes which lies quite some time ahead, but actually some of these changes are completely doable even today. For a trustworthy and robust interaction, information and voting platform - that has not been fully researched nor attempted - yet...
Some informative links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiteSeer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collactive (example of organized attackers)
Great video.
I have never witnessed a 'news' or media outlet so directly controlled by an actual political administration. BIG GOVERNMENT Conservatives (i.e. the new GOP, not the old GOP) may have a point that much media of yesterday was left of center (on a relative basis), but it was never so openly tied to a political party or their operatives.
Spread the word that sensible people will only refer to 'Fox News' by its accurate description: Faux News.
The new Tokyo Rose.
I have never witnessed a 'news' or media outlet so directly controlled by an actual political administration. BIG GOVERNMENT Conservatives (i.e. the new GOP, not the old GOP) may have a point that much media of yesterday was left of center (on a relative basis), but it was never so openly tied to a political party or their operatives.
Spread the word that sensible people will only refer to 'Fox News' by its accurate description: Faux News.
The new Tokyo Rose.
I don't understand why people are so afraid of positions other than their own. So FOX has a definite right wing bias. So what! MSNBC spews radical left shit day after day. CNBC pumps the stock market like some f'n boiler room. Big deal!
Are you so simple minded that all of YOUR opinions are formed by the fucking news media? Kill yourself now, and quit taking up valuable space.
Are you so simple minded that all of YOUR opinions are formed by the fucking news media? Kill yourself now, and quit taking up valuable space.
CaptainObvious,
I agree with you - people should stop being lazy and regurgitate what others are saying - but in fact they do. At some point we do not put the effort in there to reflect or analyze bias with a critical mind or seek out more sources.
That is why we need to do something. Just letting things fall into decay with more internal power-struggles is not how you protect a democracy or get it thriving. Apathy is a recipe for destruction.
One can't deny the correlation between news organizations, the media, and the political impact. If you are to have an effective and healthy society - you need to protect the mechanisms - in this case democracy. If there are strong forces influencing these mechanisms - one need to construct systems/models that can withstand these forces. If not, everything will break down in the end.
A democracy, just like anything that exists and is part of reality, has some kind of self-preservation - which defends it's structural integrity. That goes for any of us, society and any phenomenon you could name. Improving this structural integrity for a democracy facing very strong influence, and with improved integrity being able to withstand these forces is paramount to survival in the long run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
I agree with you - people should stop being lazy and regurgitate what others are saying - but in fact they do. At some point we do not put the effort in there to reflect or analyze bias with a critical mind or seek out more sources.
That is why we need to do something. Just letting things fall into decay with more internal power-struggles is not how you protect a democracy or get it thriving. Apathy is a recipe for destruction.
One can't deny the correlation between news organizations, the media, and the political impact. If you are to have an effective and healthy society - you need to protect the mechanisms - in this case democracy. If there are strong forces influencing these mechanisms - one need to construct systems/models that can withstand these forces. If not, everything will break down in the end.
A democracy, just like anything that exists and is part of reality, has some kind of self-preservation - which defends it's structural integrity. That goes for any of us, society and any phenomenon you could name. Improving this structural integrity for a democracy facing very strong influence, and with improved integrity being able to withstand these forces is paramount to survival in the long run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
Im always amazed athow fearful liberals are about one lonely news outfit that is tilted to the right...CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS....they can slant all they want..but OMG!!! FOX NEWS!!! hide the kids!!!
Rather Brokaw and Jennings DOMINATED american media with a liberal slant for 2 decades...now...all you care about is O'reilly??? Fox and Freinds??? LMAO
I don't get liberals anymore...They control 95% of the TV media...99% of the newspaper media, 99% of the Hollywood media, 99% of the Magazine media, and 99% of the college content.....Yet your all so insecure by FOX news and a couple of Right wing AM radio shows!!!
relax guys...its ok..you still have total domination.....unless of course your getting scared of being exposed???
Rather Brokaw and Jennings DOMINATED american media with a liberal slant for 2 decades...now...all you care about is O'reilly??? Fox and Freinds??? LMAO
I don't get liberals anymore...They control 95% of the TV media...99% of the newspaper media, 99% of the Hollywood media, 99% of the Magazine media, and 99% of the college content.....Yet your all so insecure by FOX news and a couple of Right wing AM radio shows!!!
relax guys...its ok..you still have total domination.....unless of course your getting scared of being exposed???
Have you been sniffing gym socks lately?Quote from TM_Direct:
Im always amazed athow fearful liberals are about one lonely news outfit that is tilted to the right...CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS....they can slant all they want..but OMG!!! FOX NEWS!!! hide the kids!!!
Rather Brokaw and Jennings DOMINATED american media with a liberal slant for 2 decades...now...all you care about is O'reilly??? Fox and Freinds??? LMAO
I don't get liberals anymore...They control 95% of the TV media...99% of the newspaper media, 99% of the Hollywood media, 99% of the Magazine media, and 99% of the college content.....Yet your all so insecure by FOX news and a couple of Right wing AM radio shows!!!
relax guys...its ok..you still have total domination.....unless of course your getting scared of being exposed???