Take spin, for example. This occurs not only in the reporting of news but also in the commentary on. The distinction between actual news and commentary is also often blurred. Major media use selective reporting and spin to control the narrative. In many ways, this approach to subtle persuasion is more effective and insidious than obviously faked stories that can easily be debunked with evidence.
Fake news in the broad sense of manufacturing consent began to proliferate seriously as a consequence of two factors, right-wing radio and Rupert Murdoch's fabulously successful importing model of tabloid journalism in the mainstream.
Both of these influences had an enormous effect on American politics, but they also generated a lot of money.
Both of these influences had an enormous effect on American politics, but they also generated a lot of money.
These two models became so successful that other media had to move in that direction in order to compete. A big problem with "free markets" is that they lead to a race to the bottom, so much so that the term "sewer" is often seen.
The demonizing of social media as a source of fake news that is of significant influence on politics is more about introducing censorship to return control of the narrative to the establishment than it is about genuine criticism.
Social media didn't change much. It amplified some effects and it was public enough to be noticeable. But the idea that it changed behavior is far-fetched. It's like saying that social media started high school cliques.
Social media didn't change much. It amplified some effects and it was public enough to be noticeable. But the idea that it changed behavior is far-fetched. It's like saying that social media started high school cliques.
Let's see some studies. Oh, right. There isn't enough data, or else the data is dodgy. So that makes room to assert anything without being able to challenge it based on rigorous analysis.
A point that the article makes that is interesting and potentially important is that previously most people lived in silos that most people other than close associates didn't know about the interior of. Opinions were mostly private and shared only with a small group.
Social media did change that to some extents and also the reporting of alternative media that are now accused of being the echo chamber for fake news if not the originator.
But those that could afford polling did have a pretty good handle on what most people regarded as private information and this was used in public relation, marketing and advertising, political strategy, and propaganda.
Now that information is more available and that means more sunshine, which is what is supposed to happen in a liberal democracy.
A point that the article makes that is interesting and potentially important is that previously most people lived in silos that most people other than close associates didn't know about the interior of. Opinions were mostly private and shared only with a small group.
Social media did change that to some extents and also the reporting of alternative media that are now accused of being the echo chamber for fake news if not the originator.
But those that could afford polling did have a pretty good handle on what most people regarded as private information and this was used in public relation, marketing and advertising, political strategy, and propaganda.
Now that information is more available and that means more sunshine, which is what is supposed to happen in a liberal democracy.
The Guardian
How did the news go ‘fake’? When the media went social
How did the news go ‘fake’? When the media went social
Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan
Fake news is nothing new - read George Seldes, he was writing about this in the 1930's based on his experience going back to 1910.
ReplyDeleteWhat is new is the corporate consolidation of media and government. 5 corporations that have effectively embedded themselves into the government own 90% of the media.
This at Wikipedia on Seldes:
ReplyDeleteHenry George Seldes (/ˈsɛldəs/ SEL-dəs;[aa][4] November 16, 1890 – July 2, 1995) was an American investigative journalist, foreign correspondent, editor, author, and media critic best known for the publication of the newsletter In Fact from 1940 to 1950. He was an investigative reporter of the kind known in early 20th century as a muckraker, using his journalism to fight injustice and justify reform. But by his time the public mood had changed, and reader demand for muckraking was much weaker. According to historian Helen Fordham, Seldes's career demonstrates how those who crusaded too vehemently seemed to violate new standards of impartiality and objectivity. His work was often criticized as too radical.
Ha ha. Obviously one of those "commies" like Izzy Stone. Or maybe the Hunter Thompson of his day.
History is written by the winners.
ReplyDelete