The Destruction Of The Mass Print Media Will Help Save Freedom In America

[♦ nivek ♦]

Someone "gets it" rather well..

 

kL

****************

 

The destruction of the mass print media will help save freedom in

America

Backwoods Home

by Dave Duffy

 

"The invention of the Internet, just like the invention of the

printing press in the 16th century, has reshuffled the deck when it

comes to who controls the news and information to which ordinary

people have access. The mass media is losing its power to control the

news. It's that simple! A new type of journalism, a citizen journalism

in which all sides of a story are written about from every conceivable

angle, is taking hold. It may be a bit chaotic right now, but better a

little chaos than the controlled flow of information." (08/09)

 

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/duffy119.html

[Tabula Rasa]

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

[Shyone]

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

I'm more worried that the content on the web is sometimes grossly biased and inaccurate - or just plain lies. People also start to read what they want to hear or what they want to be true instead of something that is checked by common newspaper standards.

 

There is certainly an evolution in news happening lately, but there are still agencies that are taking the time to verify their sources, so the effect of deliberate distortion is mitigated.

 

It may not turn out to be bad for "the masses" in the long run, but then it is still an ongoing process.

[Ro-bear]

I trust print media and mainstream news outlets far more than I trust Joe Blogger. There are loads of nuts on the internet. I think we should have as many sources as possible. The "destruction" of print media would be counterproductive both in terms of freedom and information.

[PaulQ]

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

 

The genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back any time soon. China's having the hardest time blocking web sites; seems people can get around those blocks unnoticed. Then there's the fact that every Joe with a half-decent internet connection has a router. We have plenty of old, useless computers that would work fine as servers; I often see them sitting at the curbside on garbage day. It would not be hard to connect these routers (either wireless or wired), set up servers, and create an underground internet.

 

Okay, so it's going to be a little slow, if not impossible, to watch streaming video from Queensland, Australia to British Columbia, Canada. However, if you don't mind a little bit of a delay, sending and receiving messages and information is possible using existing off-the-shelf technology.

 

When all else fails, bear in mind that we still have active BBS's around the world. As long as you can make a phone call, you can connect. Anyone care for a game of Space Empire Elite?

[PaulQ]

I trust print media and mainstream news outlets far more than I trust Joe Blogger. There are loads of nuts on the internet. I think we should have as many sources as possible. The "destruction" of print media would be counterproductive both in terms of freedom and information.

 

The established mainstream print media has already proven to be biased and unreliable; I don't see how personal blogs could get any worse.

[florduh]

This current fad of predicting that the end of traditional news sources will bring about freedom makes me wonder. How does losing a source of information add to one's freedom?

 

Where do you think the bloggers get their information? Traditional news sources, that's where. Bloggers don't have men in the field interviewing world leaders. They don't have reporters observing national and international events. They read the papers like everyone else and then "interpret" it for us through the lens of their own bias. I don't see the value in getting my news exclusively from every conspiracy nut and paranoid with access to a computer. Every blogger has an ax to grind. That's why they blog - to convince others they are right. Publishers and broadcasters do it because it's their job. So called "news" blogs are nothing but spin. Everyone has an opinion and is now able to express it to the world. How does that clarify anything? In practice, people mostly read what they already agree with, just the way neocons listen to Rush every day to see what they should think about current events. It just drives one deeper into their preexisting tunnel vision and validates what they already think.

 

At least there is some oversight with real news organizations. It's not a perfect system because people aren't perfect. Some put on more spin than others, but at least there is some variety in how the various outlets spin the news. You are made to hear both sides of an issue if you frequent different sources. If you get your information from bloggers, you may be making decisions based on what is said by one lonely little loser who lives in his mother's basement and pretends to be the voice of some large organization that knows the Truth.

 

To be happy about the demise of legitimate news organizations and the rise of bloggers one must make a couple of assumptions I can't embrace. First, you must assume there is an industry-wide conspiracy in the news business to deliberately lie to everyone. Second, you must assume that bloggers know more than the news agencies, and though some may be conspiracy nuts and radicals, others are telling the Real Truth - and you have the magical ability to tell one from the other.

[PaulQ]

Where do you think the bloggers get their information? Traditional news sources, that's where.

 

There's been a role reversal going on; if you checked out the links in my last post, you would discover that mainstream media relied upon Wikipedia posts. It's not the first time this has happened. The so-called "Traditional" news sources often get their information from the exact same wire feeds as do the bloggers; to think otherwise is buying into a delusion.

[florduh]

Why is the opinion of Joe Blogger more valid?

[PaulQ]

Why is the opinion of Joe Blogger more valid?

 

It's not necessarily that it's more valid, but it certainly is equally as valid.

 

EDIT: Well, I should clarify; that answer was a bit of a cop-out. The real issue is the fact that corporate mainstream media is less valid because it's controlled by the large corporations, so you'll never see anything that might be anti-corporate in the mainstream media. Joe Blogger may not have the same conflict of interest, so may be more compelled to deliver a more balanced delivery by stating the facts of the story rather than attempting to formulate an opinion in the minds of the people. Most bloggers will post the actual wire newsfeed, while mainstream media will cover it up with an opinion you should share with them and will refuse to publish anything that might make their corporate sponsors look bad.

[florduh]

It's not necessarily that it's more valid, but it certainly is equally as valid.

 

If we're not left with a better source, then what's the advantage of having the newspapers go under?

[PaulQ]

It's not necessarily that it's more valid, but it certainly is equally as valid.

 

If we're not left with a better source, then what's the advantage of having the newspapers go under?

 

See my edited post; essentially, when you have a news source that's not controlled by corporate entities, you're going to get all the news, even that which might make those corporate entities look bad.

[florduh]

Why should we trust the wire feed?

 

I understand what you're saying about corporate influence. Hell, the corporations already own Congress.

 

Shit, I can't trust anybody anymore!

[nightflight]

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

 

Its on the agenda, no doubt about it.

[Franko47]

Florduh makes some good points here.

 

 

I think there's a difference between "reporting" the news and "commentary" on the news. I like to amuse myself with bloggers from across the political spectrum, although at times it's a mind-twister going from "Daily Kos" to "Ann Coulter" to "Right Nation" to "George Will" to "Liberal in Texas". (You get the idea).

 

 

My only complaint of the MSM (mainstream media) is that sometimes the news can be a little bit "watered-down" by the time it's disseminated to the public. Try watching the BBC sometime. Some of it's news reports are so ambigous due to PC concerns that they really haven't told me anything.

 

It's sometimes interesting to latch to foriegn media; get their perspective on things. Pravda, The Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera, and even Japanese media can be an interesting read.

 

At least the internet is giving us accessibility to more foriegn sources. As for all the bloggers, I'm not that swayed by their ranting, somehow. Regardless of left or right.

[PaulQ]

Why should we trust the wire feed?

 

I understand what you're saying about corporate influence. Hell, the corporations already own Congress.

 

Shit, I can't trust anybody anymore!

 

Obviously, any news is only as accurate as the person reporting it. That said, there exists a conflict of interest with mainstream media, because mainstream media is owned and operated by big corporations. Companies that take out the full page ads or have big accounts aren't going to receive any negative press coverage, even if it's warranted. Joe Blogger doesn't have these big accounts he's afraid to lose, so he is free to post news stories that are critical of those big corporations being shielded by the mainstream media. If mainstream media tries to discredit Joe Blogger, we can hope that people recognize the fact that, with mainstream media, the Fox is guarding the hen house (pardon the pun).

[florduh]

the Fox is guarding the hen house (pardon the pun).

Okay, all is forgiven. That was good.

[Shyone]

Obviously, any news is only as accurate as the person reporting it.

To a degree, at least, any publicly respected source of news is accountable for what they publish and they will be ridiculed for publishing false or misleading information.

 

It reminds me of the criterion for scientific acceptance: Publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Trusted sources are trusted because they take care to screen their publication and eliminate false and misleading articles.

 

If all we have are individuals who don't care if they are criticized and who publish information that is discredited, then the country will become - a lot like it is now.

[Legion]

I think large amounts of competition in journalism can only be a good thing. I mean, in the end won’t it mean that we will be provided with a quality product at a reasonable price?

[Shyone]

I think large amounts of competition in journalism can only be a good thing. I mean, in the end won’t it mean that we will be provided with a quality product at a reasonable price?

It should, but as the number of sources for information increases, the ability to discriminate between good and bad sources decreases.

 

If you had never heard of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the National Enquirer, you would accord them the same degree of reliability as a starting point. If there were thousands of unreliable sources and no means to discriminate, then your ability to find a reliable source diminishes.

 

That is the crux of "reputation" in news.

 

I suppose that as the number of sources increases, the best will "rise to the top." The problem might be that we will not be able to see bias if our sources always agree with us regardless of the actual news behind the story.

[Vigile]

I trust print media and mainstream news outlets far more than I trust Joe Blogger. There are loads of nuts on the internet. I think we should have as many sources as possible. The "destruction" of print media would be counterproductive both in terms of freedom and information.

 

Well, I don't trust Joe Blogger, but that surely doesn't mean I have to trust the MSM, who is clearly bought and paid for by their corporate owners.

 

On a side note, I think that the internet is having quite another interesting effect, which I was thinking about today with a FB poll I've been having fun debating on. Millions of xians are for the first time being exposed to alternative points of view. That has to create waves of some sort. Guess hindsight will tell us what.

[Vixentrox]

Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and pals want to have the ability to "shut down" private networks and internet links? Declare an "emregency" to get control of information flow?

[Ro-bear]

Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and pals want to have the ability to "shut down" private networks and internet links? Declare an "emregency" to get control of information flow?

 

Paranoid much?

[Vixentrox]

Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and pals want to have the ability to "shut down" private networks and internet links? Declare an "emregency" to get control of information flow?

 

Paranoid much?

When it comes to government power? Yeah, a bit. Didn't you complain about the Patriot Act? Paranoid much?

[nightflight]

Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and pals want to have the ability to "shut down" private networks and internet links? Declare an "emregency" to get control of information flow?

 

Paranoid much?

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

 

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

 

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.