I woke up to news that Rupert Murdoch is probably going to buy the Wall Street Journal. I don't read the WSJ, but still it bothers me. They are a real newspaper, the kind we don't have anymore. And everything Murdoch touches goes tabloid. It bothers me because the WSJ does real journalism and it worries me that we'll have less of that in the world. I don't care about his editorial stance. I care about his management style. He prefers style over substance and spectacle over truth. His way certainly is more profitable, but it doesn't make the world a better place.
The NPR story I heard quoted a guy named Alex Jones and that got me excited, but it was a different Alex Jones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There should only be one Alex Jones. All others must be rounded up and shot.
This is the way all pre packeaged media is going to be if it isnt already. News, print or otherwise, is just another product to be sold.
There are still other sources of information but many of them rely of the end users ability to research and have the capacity for critical thought.
I think it's funny because through libraries, schools and other access points these sources of information are freely available to virtually everyone. This will redefine haves and have nots into know and know nots with sub groups for what it is they know.
Now free will gets to lay a strong part in information. People can choose to fill their heads with entertainment news or go out of their way to find whats important. Then they only get whats important to them. And they choose how they hear it and who tells it to them. How many people check thomas.gov to see how theyre getting screwed or how much money is actually being wasted? Its free. Its up to date. Its accurate. Let the news tell them what they should think is important, not the record. Its been that way since I was born.
News the way it has come is dead and I see everything becoming a tech driven word-of-mouth system.
Maybe society will get spit into information classes rather than social or economic classes. Ghettos filled with people watching Entertainment Tonight, stadiums filled with ESPN viewers and a handful of people up in the woods with rifles hoping the government loses track of them. I know where I'll be. In the ghettos hitting on stupid girls.
Is it up to news publications to make the world a better place?
I like the free market of information, but I'm not wholly convinced that's what we have here. It's like choosing between a Snickers bar and an apple at the grocery store. Which one have you had advertisements drilled into your brain for and which one is most conveniently located while you're checking out? How much effort do you have to spend to develop a preference for the thing that's better for you? In the free market of information, every piece of information would have equal weight, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
The image of intellectuals and academics out in the woods with weapons stockpiles is wonderful.
You're goddamn right it's the journalists' job to make the world a better place. It's their job to tell the truth so we can make informed decisions. An informed-decision-making populace will make the world a better place.
I'm not buying that a well-informed public makes for a better world. You can take two people who live next door to each other, work in the same office, have the same IQ scores, present them with the same information and they can each come to completely different conclusions.
Walk one through Fair Haven and he may say something like "these people need help, lets get them some monetary assistance" and the other could say "these people need a kick in the ass, lets pave over this neighborhood." So though both are well informed they are making opposing decisions. That future wouldnt be much different than the current situation where the public seems mostly split 50/50 on everything. Unless a better world includes constant civil war?
I also don't think that because Snickers is in your face more than apples the individual is somehow not responsable for eating too many Snickers. How many concepts and products do each of us get assaulted with daily and how many of these do we actually give into? Fear of the NWO aside.
I claimed it would be a free information market. Not a "fair" or equal one. Whatever "fair" means or if "fair" is even possible outside of a group larger than two. If the market was equal there wouldnt be any competition and it would cease to be a market. You'd have to find robots to provide information without bias or agenda and protect these machines from any human corruption or contact. But then the robots will take over. It's only a matter of time.
Oh, I dont think there is a such thing as the truth anymore. Now its all a subjective interpretation of events based on a true story with some editorial thrown in for good measure. It's the new improved truth ever since journalists started thinking of themselves as activists.
Post a Comment