Slashdot Mirror
The Media in 2014
Alexandre Van de Sande writes "Robin Sloan made a flash video as a "documentary" of how big enterprises like google and amazon converged medias and changed the way we see news by 2014.
It's a vision of what could be (or will be) the world with personalized media, made by peers, and the guy knows what's going on on those big heads. It ends with a sad view on which, althought some people get their news in a way they could never before, most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia. And that's exactly what they wanted." This will take a few minutes to watch, but stick it out to the end. I think there's a lot in there that you really should think about.
I couldn't help but laugh when they mention "Googlezon" forming in 2006. :-)
"most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia"
Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?
Amazon and Google are already beginning to become cluttered with useless features (particularly Amazon).
You may be able to get personalized news... but like 6 people will be able to figure out how to find the right page or widget to click on if Amazon does it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
will bandwidth allotments ever change? Nearly half of all mirrors for that site are down for the count. And one is slower than molasses in January in Moscow.
And for the record, I still read my morning newspaper.
Google will have taken over the world. GUnited Nations.
Bad karma for correcting people I always say.
... that some media in 2014 won't be digitally signed at all
839*929
Wasn't this posted not to long ago?
98% of /. readers don't read the article. What makes you think they'll watch it?
But where's the section about Slashdot?!? Shurely Shome Mishtake?
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
its about how to turn your webserver into a screaming pile of goo.
Step 1.) Create Monster Flash Movie
Step 2.) Post link on popular news journal.
Step 3.) Grab Fire Extinguisher and/or Turn on Halon.
Sig it.
how big enterprises like google and amazon converged medias
'Media' is the plural of 'medium'. Hence, 'medias' is nonsense.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
Not sure how this is different from CNN et al now.
... welcome our new search engine overlords.
That "journalistic ethics" will somehow be lost if The New York Times were to go away.
What a claim! LOL!
"...some people get their news in a way they could never before, most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia. And that's exactly what they wanted."
And then: I think there's a lot in there that you really should think about.
Next time Slashdot thinks about posting some "news" from a sensationalist random guy's blog, please remember how hard you thought about this and we'll all appreciate it!
Damn, damn DAMN!!! I guess that domain parker will get rich instead of me now. >:-(
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Summary (taken from the post):
the guy knows what's going on on those big heads. It ends with a sad view...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
The medium is the message, , Marshall McLuhan said. I remember watching a film in high school and was baffled.
Today, I'm more aware.
People are gullible as they wish to trust news from a higher source. That is, they will trust what they see on the TV because the information came from the TV. Never mind that the television or radio itself is not a guarantee of truth. Never mind that your neighbor's story may not be as strong in your mind, despite the fact that they are directly involved in the story and have first hand information.
The Internet is generating a cult of self-truth, a desire to seek information at will. However, most of us lack the logical means to determine the value and authenticity of gathered information, relying on someone they see in a suit on TV. Advertisers play with this concept to sell product often with actors that play attorneys and doctors. Actors themselves believe their OWN play-image as they speak at congressional hearings on matters of which they have no professional skills or experience. Merely because they pretended to be something makes them credible in the eyes of many.
Many believe the information on the Intenret is valid because it is simply ON the Internet.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Yes, I'm concerned about this issue as well. I've been wondering how to start getting my news from fake "documentaries" instead!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
In 2014, half of us will be dead. I didn't think google is going to top the list of necessities.
I'm thinking canned food will be the next big thing.
A moment of realization is worth a thousand /. comments: the media is like the weather, only it's corporate-made weather. Take the corporate media and the story ends. Take the independent media, stay in Wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia
As opposed how to the big three news media outlets today? See: last election cycle.
*watches squatters run to register googlezon.net*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't have a problem with this. http://news.google.com is a great way to get nearly unbiased news...well more that the search for news is unbiased, not the particular news association.
Robin Sloan made a flash video as a "documentary" of how big enterprises like google and amazon converged medias and changed the way we see news by 2014.
Maybe by 2014 the slashdot editors will have attained basic literacy.
I hate that expression.
If you want a book where the information gets out of hand try in the near future try Killing Time by Caleb Carr. It's not great, but it has some interesting ideas.
And then.... Google.... goes.... public.
it's never been easier for everyone, !!EVARYONE!!, to publish.
Googlezon!
Googlezilla!
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Has there ever been a time in history where most human beings didn't think what they wanted to think anyway?
Will they completely failed the American people like the media in 2004? In other words, will they allow an arrogant, rogue administration like the failed Bush administration to lie, inveigle, and obfuscate their way into a war with Iraq?
I saw this flash video last week and wrote the following on my own website in responce to it. I figured it'd be relevent here so here's a version edited to be posted on slashdot.
For the past year now I've been predicting that within the next ten Google will 'take over the world'. Most people I tell this two think I'm crazy and this will never happen saying that Google is the best company ever and they will never turn evil. I tend to disagree.
Let me take just a few minutes to explain why I think this.
Facts - Google owns:
- Google is the most used search engine
- Gmail, while maybe not the most used email provider (maybe it is now?) it is definitely the most highly desired
- Orkut, while mostly blown over now is still a thriving social network site
- Google News is viewed as a #1 news site for many people
- Blogger is one of the leading blog sites and blogs are all over the news these days
- Keyhole offers a satalite imageing service
- Google Desktop Search
- Google Adsense - probably the most widly used advertising on the web these days (used even on this website although I haven't seen any return yet)
- And much much more, plus all the things normal people like myself have come up with such as the random google image in the right sidebar.
My point to all of this is the following:
Through GMail Google stores and never deletes your email. They catalog it and can do a LOT with that data. With time google can write robots to parse the data to find out every bit of data about you, who you know, what you talk about, etc. Gmail bundled with Orkut Google really has a solid grip on your social network with more detail and structure then email alone. Google knows who joebob62@aol.com really is, where he lives, what his pass times are, etc and can link it up with your email conversations. Now to get even further into your life they have the Google Desktop Search which has already been called on being invasive bypassing security on people's PC's and cataloging files that it shouldn't.
Step back for a second, Google now knows who you know, what you talk about, details about every person, everything you say on your computer, what files you have, what is in each file, basically all of your Digital Data. Oh, also if you use the google search bar (IE plug-in) in advanced mode (default.. plus ohh! I want advanced features....) they track every webpage you go, although the desktop search tool does that as well. 0wned.
Next we start to see Google's current revenue. Blogs, Keyhole, Adsense. Wow, if the inflated stock doesn't make them enough $$$ then this sure helps. Although I don't believe Google charges for blogger right now they are setting their selves up for it in the future if blogging ever takes off as a legitimate news source... News.. Google news is one of the most used news services to gather news from many sources, sorted automatically for relevance...
Now, just think if Google DID want to turn evil (assuming they aren't already) how much of the market they already own. In the 90's people switched search engines all the time, but moving email providers, etc is a lot harder to do. In a few more years they'll have people so dependant on them and their products just like Microsoft people will be stuck with Google for better or.. worse.
More info on Google being evil is at google-watch.
I personally haven't come up with a scenario myself, and I am uncertain if this one is how its going to happen, but I was happy to see that others feel the same way as I do, that within the next ten years Google will takeover the world, or in this movie, the media forcing the New York Times offline.
Please take the time to watch this movie, and ignore the somewhat cheesiness of it. I really think they are being insightful and this COULD happen.
Belive in Technology and AMAZE yourself. -- RIP ZDTV/TechTV
"...some people get their news in a way they could never before, most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia. And that's exactly what they wanted." You can get that today, its called The Sun.
It's not big, but it's clever!
1. Be skeptical of future predictions where they say 'it becomes possible for anyone to publish anything anywhere'
2. They forget ebay, News and Bricks and Mortar Giants who all have too important a part to play
3. The timescale is a little optimistic.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Sounds interesting, where/when do I sign up? I just hope it comes before the MSMonopolyBoard!
I am unable to get any of the mirrors to play the flash thing, but the gist of the summary sounds awfully similar to what "they" said would happen to UseNet.
Remember UseNet? The subscription-based, topic-partitioned peer-to-peer automatic mailing list thing? Everybody was going to subscribe to what they wanted, shut out what they didn't, and bring about the balkanization of society, unless the Y2K bug got us first.
The reason this didn't happen was twofold. Firstly, the web came along, and people really like pictures and visual navigation. This needn't have killed the paradigm, though, there could still have been subscription-based topic-partitioned web content. In fact, there was -- people who know the meaning of the word "webring" are familiar with early attempts. The second reason it didn't happen was the rise of portals -- savvy operators realied that the web was hard to navigate, and that by selecting and aggregating content, you could help people out.
But, it turned out, content aggregation wasn't economical unless you could "brand" yourself, and draw a large audience. Then you can pay for your bandwidth with advertising revenue. Then, you find out that you're rewarded not for serving a niche, but for hitting the mass audience. This means user-friendly, family-friendly, culturally mainstream but with many destinations.
Thus did the web become television. People still read UseNet news, of course, but it hasn't balkanized the culture, and neither has the web.
I suppose it's possible that Amazon/Google will go down a different road, and profitably serve lots of niches all at once, but the economic efficiency of delivering uniform content to a mass audience really is hard to beat.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
This is what I started a thesis on (and never finished).
The biggest problem with personalized news is that the viewer/user will often only get news that they are interested in.
They will not get other viewpoints of the same stories and they will also be able to avoid any news/informational items that might make them think.
Is it 5:30 yet?
I think Yahoogle sounds better.
Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
Yeah, right.
Flash + LSD + "Welcome to the Machine" by Pink Floyd = EPIC
smattawichu
One of my favorite quotes from the Blade Runner is "Replicants are like any other technology. They're either a benefit or a hazard". Replace "replicants" with "media convergence" and we have a good cautionary phrase to keep in mind.
Way back before there were books (pre-Gutenberg), reading was only for the rich. More importantly, information, communication and news were for the rich. If we don't watch it, the balance could tip that way again. Taking into account that computers have the potential to be used as a benefit or a hazard to mankind, we really should look at these sorts of things with a very cautious eye.
There are plenty of people here on Slashdot and in the real world who feel that access to information (be it movies, music, news, source code, what have you) should be limited to those who can afford it. Anyone who can't is obviously a failure at life and doesn't deserve access. These are people who want to see public libraries disappear. They are people who want to see open source/free softwaer die off or be made illegal. They don't believe it is their responsibility to help others. But the question arises... why do these people feel this way?
I think there are two distinct groups. The first group (much smaller in size, with a lot of money and therefore with much more to lose) are the people who own and profit from systems that are counter to the spirit of free and equal access for all. These are people who feel that they have the right to make as much profit from their inventions/productions/IP with no concern for fairness (ie, there is a point where you've made enough money and you can stop). These people have let the worst traits of humanity overtake them: greed and selfishness. They believe they are entitled to much more than their efforts are worth simply because they are somehow "better" than everyone else and "know more" than everyone else.
The second group are people who believe that if they support this kind of system, that they have a chance at eventually becoming just like the people mentioned in the first group. What a thing to aspire to! Can you imagine actually WANTING to be the kind of person who restricts and controls others based on money? Personally, I think it's some kind of sickness. The problem with this second group is that they have no understanding of how the deck is stacked heavily against them. They might be given a token "success" in a local sort of way, but that has far less value than either doing something that helps others in the world (free/open source software, FREE public libraries, volunteer work, etc...) or doing something personal for your family (building your own furniture, growing your own food, etc...).
The sad thing about the second group is that they are largely failures. Failed business ventures, money lost on investments that they don't understand that were managed by people who DON'T want to help them. These things are unavoidable if you approach life with the goal of getting rich. It is far better to approach your life with the view that you want to enrich your mind and the minds of those around you.
Money should take a back seat since intellect leads to adaptability and adaptability means you can live comfortably no matter what the circumstances. The key is in knowledge and intelligence, not money. I believe this is the message that we should be drumming into people's heads. But it's been drowned out by the ever bleating cry of the modern "capitalist" who puts the value of money above all else. How else can you explain the worship of the stupid? Pro wrestlers are heroes? George W. Bush is an intelligent man? Criminals who have a second occupation as musicians are idols? Reality television that bears no resemblance to reality?
Intelligence and access to knowledge are only problems to the people in group one mentioned above. They fear the concept of an informed and intelligent consumer/public. They are scared shitless of the idea that some people may awaken from their stupor an
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
How many thinking people could you get to sit down and read a 400 page documented book that attempted to explore this theoretical outcome in any real depth?
Now ask yourself: How many idiots can you get to watch an 8 minute Flash animation and be awestruck by its "powerful" revelations and insight?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
In the bottom half of the Google Keyhole, Google Scholar post. Today must be a slow Google news day.
The vision of Epic 2014 reminds me of the early 20th century's era of Yellow Journalism, except on a much more massive scale. The publications during that time were a dime a dozen (sometimes quite literally), and full of gossip and sensationalist garbage. It took decades for such trash news to leave the mainstream....
But our current situation could be millions of times worse than the era of Yellow Journalism. What if everyone was capable of creating their own 'publications?' The massive search engines we are developing today will evolve into the portals for this amature news, and one quick look around any message board can tell you what most of that news is going to be like: poor, baseless, and gossip.
Journalists are supposed to act as the gatekeepers of information; they choose what is most important for the world to know using carefully made decisions and insight. If we take away the gatekeepers, there's a good chance that the sheer volume of information on the internet will crush us.
After all, for every webpage talking about the latest war or legal decision, there are at least ten talking about how much someone hates their boss, the latest Wal-Mart opening, and other such random things.
If you're one of those people who thinks that the US mainstream press doesn't report "the truth" and is completely "in the pocket" of corporations and/or government, then you're already part of the problem. I find the following excerpt from a story on the (ridiculously blatantly false) theory that Flight 77 really didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 extremely relevant:
It is safe to say that the thesis advocated by Thierry Meyssan, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is a tour de force of obfuscation and misinterpretation. Meyssan has nevertheless attracted a bevy of adherents who have based their own interpretations and theories on his. Just how prevalent this theory has become can be confirmed quickly with a Web search. Such a search turns up very little useful information but returns a veritable mountain of misinformation.
This, in fact, underscores the problem. Modern society is awash in a rapidly expanding sea of information, and it has become increasingly more difficult to identify information that is reliable, factual and useful. Nevertheless, it is essential to identify reliable information sources and carefully evaluate their material. What is the background of the source? Does the source have a track record of reliability? Is the story verifiable? Are witnesses named, or are they anonymous? Does the story match known or observed phenomena, or does it run counter to these? Are there elements of the story that you know to be true -- or know not to be true? Has the source consistently employed fallacious reasoning?
Failure to carefully weigh the reliability of information sources by asking these and other questions exposes patriotic Americans to the possibility of being misled and marginalized, an outcome to be avoided if the tide toward collectivism is to be reversed.
"Bloggers" have no obligation to report all sides of a story, all the facts of a story, or even any facts at all. And it seems that many people are content to read blogs as gospel, and seek out information that reinforces their preconceived notions about a particular topic.
----------------
The rest of this message is a footnote for people who *actually believe* that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11, since some retards will inevitably respond with things like "Um, dude, you're seriously deluded if you believe the official propaganda about what happened on 9/11", etc.:
Here was an email that I wrote up before, in response to the ridiculous flash move that's been circulating:
-----
The problem here is the way the flash movie was done. First of all, some of the images in the movie were edited from the original photographs to support the author's view of events. Second, the only quotes from witnesses in the flash movie are selectively picked - from HUNDREDS of statements - to support the "missile" theory. Additionally, the author even contradicts himself, including statements about a missile, AND a "small" or "commuter" plane. (Well, which is it?)
Let's take a step back for a moment:
1. There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon. These were all just ordinary people, going about their business in the DC area, some affiliated with government and/or miltary, some not. Of the witnesses who say it "sounded" like a missile (note the word "sounded"): how is that even relevant? I ask because of the obvious: how many of these people even know what a missile "sounds" like? How many people have heard a commercial jetliner just hundreds of feet (and at some point, tens of feet) off the ground travelling at ~400-500mph? And to repeat, many, many, many people reported directly seeing an American Airlines commercial jetliner.
2. All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false. There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon. Ironically, here are even large pieces of 757 wreckage visi
I thought this guy made some interesting points, and his delivery method was borderline brilliant, but the question I have is what can we do?
I was recently having a discussion with my mother, who in the last few years has eschewed the television almost entirely, but while she was visiting my aunt found herself watching the news. Her near immediate reaction was what the hell is this? The news she had grown up with had at least seemed solid, fair, unbiased, and if anything viewed the entirety of the political machine with skepticism. "Human interest" stories were almost non-existant, there was no sensationalism, and comercialism hadn't yet sunk its claws into the medium.
The question I now have is when did profit become the business of news, or am I naive for thinking it ever wasn't? How can a fair media exist if as I see it there are only three means of supporting itself: fees from subscribers, fees from advertisers, or being state sponsered?
If the majority of people are not inclined to want "real" news, a premire news outlet cannot rely on subscription fees alone, and the other two alternitives I can only see as cripling to the objectivity of the source, or am I now being too jaded?
I like to think in the year 2014 I'll be able to use whatever is in place to be the best educated citizen I can be, but am I wrong in wondering what the point is, if as I suspect 90% of the people out there are only hearing what they want to hear, truth be damned?
Never in my life have I felt the sting of being a minority, I'm a white male in Minnesota, but I fear a change is coming in which the intellectuals of this country are beholden to the whims of the ignorant and uneducated.
I fear the last election, the current war in Iraq, and the broad spectrum line-up of "reality" TV is just the tip of the iceberg, in the long decline of our society.
I for one do not welcome our new, ignorant and sedate majority overlords.
wtfv? wtf? i dont get it.
steal this sig
I was talking to a friend about this video and he had an interesting theory. What is Epic really? The quality of the video lead him to believe it was a marketing ploy.
I personally think that 2014 is too long of a projection. With things moving at the speed they are today I would not be suprised to see this come to pass in the next 5 years.
(And of course this gets modded up)
How many times did Fox claim that WMDs had been found in Iraq? It became a running joke in our house to guess how long it would be until they made their next false discovery.
Huh?
FNC is one of the several channels on in my office all day. They only claimed WMD were possibly found when a source within the government, military, or other source in Iraq claimed WMD were possibly found.
No. Really.
They never "made up" stories that WMD were found. And, in fact, trace amounts of WMD were found, several times. I'm not saying any of these constitutes finding WMD in the context of our initial claims, but trace amounts of WMD were found nonetheless. I'm sure there's some blog(s) somewhere that alleged to track "falsehoods" from FNC. I have never seen a story that was later found to be inaccurate (with regard to WMD, WMD trailers, labs, etc.) allowed to stand. And no, they don't just silently sweep it away, they often spent the next several hours saying that the initial reports were inaccurate.
The difference with FNC is that they reported on things much earlier and with less verification, resulting in less reliable news at any point in time, but MORE TIMELY news over an extended period of time. After watching FNC alongside CNN, MSNBC, BBCWORLD, and even Armed Forces Television, I recall extremely numerous times that FNC was reporting on a news item fifteen to thirty minutes, and sometimes up to an hour, before any other news outlet. Most of the time, the story was generally accurate. The other news organizations seemed to be more conservative about reporting. This sometimes came back to bite FNC, but ultimately resulted in much more timely information from FNC *if* you watched it long enough to see potential corrections. Reporting that could be termed inaccurate or incorrect was BY NO MEANS the norm, and was ALWAYS corrected/retracted if it was incorrect.
I haven't RTFA'ed yet, but I put $20 on the author mentioning Matt Drudge before the end it.
Also check out The Corporation... it has a nice chapter on the incident you are referring to.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
>This will take a few minutes to watch, but stick it out to the end. I think there's a lot in there that you really should think about.
Wow, you tricked me! I was waiting till way after the "credits" for something interesting to think about.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Microsoft lost.
Software Wars
..if you consider 2038 as forever.
Q:Is there a FireFox plugin to delete cookies that last too long?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
You sound like the arrogant one. What role, exactly, do you think the media "failed" in fulfilling? Smearing Bush even more than they did? Fahrenheit 9/11 was too "objective" for you? Dan Rather's forged documents not "incisive"-enough journalism?
Oh, you must mean that the media "completely failed" by not proclaiming Kerry the winner, even though he lost. Gotcha. Yeah, here in the US we have this thing called representational government. It says despots like you don't always get your way, when a lot of other people disagree.
How about a flash documentary about how the tiny company, Macromedia, succeeding in co-opting the web in ways Microsoft could only dream of?
Libraries will be a waste of space and vacation time by the year 2000. Woops, what year are we in?
Does this seem like some puerile mental mastubatory experience to anyone else but me? Googlezon Hegemony? Come on, this won't happen for at least another 30 years. And it'll be called Amazoogle.
Googlezon,... please.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is really awful. Not what he's talking about, I mean this flash animation. It's poorly conceived, ignores real market realities and does exactly what it purports to be fighting against by sensationalizing a non-existant problem. I don't mean to say that none of what he's talking about is true, but it's not very well thought out or particularly inspired.
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
No, not the movie itself. The pacing is what's overly optimistic. In ten years, I guarantee you that NYT will not be a paper-only rag that services the elite and the elderly. NYT is not only an institution, it's a brand, like Nike. And if the mediascape becomes useless due to convergence like this author predicts, I'd think filtered/controlled organizations like NYT become even more powerful.
What some futurists seem to forget is that what happens with new technology (and convergence-delivered media would be a new form of tech) is that it doesn't replace anything. Yeah, CDs replaced cassettes, but are cassettes gone? Nope, still around, and still doing a damn fine job when you want to perform a linear recording. Did TV replace radio? Did the Internet replace TV? No, no, no. I like some of what this author said -- freelance reporters getting a cut of Google's Ad fee -- but all this will be is another option and nothing more. Is it possible that TNY will be reduced when mega-convergence happens? It's possible, but not likely.
And the bit about the Supreme Court in 2011 (or whenver it was) ruling for Googlezon? Please! Does this author even realize who just got elected as Pres for the next four years? The court's gonna be stacked with as many conservatives as Bush can muster.
And bots will not have the intelligence to manipulate words into coherent sentences. Not by 2014.
It didn't begin in 2004. Stallman and the FSF were there twenty years beforehand. I just sat through the flash animation to be told that bloggers would pass on free information and people would move from trusting news agencies to trusting computer programs and social contacts for news. But the words of the FSF: "Information wants to be free" got there first.
;)
And the sensationalist trivia? I'm ineligible to comment because this is Slashdot...
...and like many of you, I say 'so what?' Today the informed go out of their way to be informed, and the ignorant go out of their way to be ignorant. This seems to say that in the future it will... well... pretty-much still be like that. Yawn.
Personally I think in the future the big media conglomerate will be called SlashGooZon, but only 'cause it's so damn much fun to say...
---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
For all of the talk about these dotcom companies converging, I noticed that the fadeouts between logos were made to look like they were coming from an analog signal. I know a little red x (or a 404 page) isn't quite as dramatic, but still.
most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia
And how is this different from network news today?
I know that is fiction because it didn't include fark.
...and there was nothing in a book that couldn't be found in a printed book.
Obviously, I meant to say, "...and there was nothing online that couldn't be found in a printed book."
Serves me right for posting before I've had my second cup of coffee.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
If politicians are the inevitiable side effect of democracy then doesn't it make sense that a democratic media would create equally hideous monsters? That's the question he asks but he doesn't try to answer it. If news is as customized as he proposes then it doesn't make sense to classify news as one thing. My media would be totally different from someone else's just like people today have the choice to read The Globe and other tabloids. Media doesn't shape society as much as it is a reflection of our current level of awareness. Fix the education system and the media landscape will magically transform in 10 - 15 years. It's too bad people don't vote for the long term benefit of society.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Define your terms, and provide examples. From a foreign perspective, NPR seems rigorously balanced. More importantly, they go in-depth on subjects that standard news organisations simply won't touch.
Clinton's elimination of the Fairness DoctrineThe Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan, not Clinton.
And how is your typical blogger any more informed or connected than a journalist?
Now, everybody has their own AP/UPI feedWhich is fed by who? Journalists
Once, everybody who became a professional journalist did so not because he wanted to present world events in a fair and balanced manner, but because he wanted to influence world events, crusade for a cause, and be a celebrity. Then, journalists had to pretend they had interestes other than their own in mind. Soon, they can cease pretending completely.Error of generalisation. Also, you are saying that things have actually improved, in the sense that the attempt at masquerade is increasingly dropped.
Every major news outlet ceases delivering "the news" in primetime as they currently do, and instead they are all attempting to imitate the success of Bill O'Reilly on Fox...I don't disagree. But that is a symptom of the Cult of Celebrity, rather than the nature of news.
What cracks me up about this, is, if its a view into the future, media companies such as the NYTimes requiring you to log-in to read the news are only speeding this process up.
-Todd
Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.
And, in fact, trace amounts of WMD
Trace amounts of Mass destruction, eh? What does that multiply out to, weapons of normal destruction?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Libraries won't be replaced by the Internet. They'll be replaced by electronic archiving, which of course be distributed on the Internet. You're right, accuracy and reliability of online resources is questionable, but isn't truth, truth? It doesn't matter that newspapers survive. "As loyal as I am to newspapers, I confess it's not even essential that the ink-on-paper medium survives. What matters is that journalism survive, that the craft of speaking truth to power with factual care not be snuffed out." -Chris Satullo, editorial-page editor, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2004
Err...
"If you're one of those people who thinks that the US mainstream press doesn't report "the truth" and is completely "in the pocket" of corporations and/or government, then you're already part of the problem."
I call shenanigans!
This is a classic "straw man": proposing an obvious and easily refuted falsehood and representing it as the opposing argument, refuting it, and claiming that you have thereby disproved the opposing argument.
It doesn't matter, then, whether the conspiracy theory you're invoking is true or false, logical or ludicrous, because it has nothing to do with the point our Anonymous Coward was making.
He didn't argue "the US mainstream press [...] is completely "in the pocket" of corporations and/or government", he implied that the US press promoted "a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia".
And he's absolutely right. What Harlan Ellison denigrates as the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line may be full of "a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia", but at least it has feedback mechanisms that let you find out when it's accelerating towards the crackpot event horizon. The mainstream press claims to, but oddly enough when I know what's really behind the stories I'm amazed how obviously wrong they are.
Actually, the cogent and relevant portion of my post was the italicized portion, which I feel speaks to the issues surrounding this slashdot story;
The cogent and relevant portion is the paragraph above it, where you set up the background for the straw man in the italicised portion.
I knew there would be readers who *actually believe* the conspiracy theories about Flight 77, and would respond to my post
And yet, they didn't. But we did point out that you were using a bogus argument, demonstrating the value of the feedback that you get when everyone contributes.
Thank you for volunteering to be an object lesson.
We used to have checks and balances in media, via the "equal time provision" of FCC licensing. When one side told a lie, the other side got a chance to counter it, either with facts or a lie of their own. If one side told the truth, the other side got a chance to rebut it, but the public at least saw both sides and could make a decision. In the end, the truth was much more readily available, and lies were harder to spread, obviated by juxtaposition with the truth.
But that is gone, now, and entire networks can pretend not to be political house-organs.
What is the solution?
Make it a crime to lie in published media intended to be taken as fact.
That simple.
This doesn't violate free speech rights, because you don't have a right to lie. Lies are illegal in all manner of situations. Perjury. Fraud. Making false police reports. Etc.
But it won't happen. We're already in the situation that the lying was intended to produce, and it will take etreme statistical deviance in political ideology to break us out of it.
Isn't it funny how Western society is always on the brink of disaster but somehow we never quite get there. (No, the actual kind of disaster, not the histrionics of the far left/right.) If you take a look around, beyond your personal agendas, things are actually pretty darn good.
"If most financial analysts watched a puppy growing for the first month of its life, they would conclude that a year from now it will be a 400-foot tall monster trashing downtown Tokyo."
We don't need GoogleZon to create EPIC. It already exists. We have it right here, right now. Everything that this little show promises already exists. All the tools are there, all the features and functions, everything except for the apocalyptic vision of a single company controlling the whole thing. But that part of it, well, that's a different kind of nightmare altogether.
The idea that you need to wait for Some Big Company to pull all the pieces together, well, if that was true there wouldn't have been any search engines for Google to have grown out of, there wouldn't have been any online journals for Blogger to grow out of. None of the individual companies matter... they're just the ones out of all the companies doing the same thing that happen to have hit critical mass.
EPIC is the Internet, the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line, it's what we have right now. The idea of a personalised narrative constructed from multiple news stories, that's not even new: Simon Bond used it in one of his schticks back before most people had even heard of computer networks (in a book entitled "Getting Even", so long ago Amazon doesn't even have a copy of his book for sale 'new or used'). This isn't a vision of the future, it's a vision of the present filtered through the past.
But then, so was 1984.
Not that it excuses Bill Clinton's draft-dodging, but I think Dubya not fulfilling his commitment and then using his service as some badge of honour is worse.
After all, it's not like Dubya's daddy didn't do a good job of making sure junior was out of danger by getting him a placement in the ANG where he was in no danger whatsoever, is it? I find the fact that he was onto a cushy number yet still failed to do what little was asked of him incredible.
That someone who showed such little regard for duty then is now the Commander-In-Chief responsible for sending young men off to die in an unnecessary and illegal war, all whilst cutting their pay and benefits, is the sickest joke.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Nah- the multinational corporations will still have power in the Confederacy of Five United States- it's just that fewer people in the old USA will still have the money for their Googlezon subscriptions is all. Doesn't matter- our downfall will be the gain of China and India, so there will be about two billion Epic subscribers in Southeast Asia...
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Q. If the explanation is as simple as you say it is then why not come out and say it? And why aren't there other people with similar experiences who are queuing up to tell us that's the case?
A. Because that's not how it happened.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
So just because one document proved to be false then you consider that proof beyond any possible doubt that Dubya fulfilled his commitment to the fullest of his ability? Puh-leaze.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Don't worry- the NYT rag on the Left and the WSJ on the Right will still be there for you when you are elderly and elitist. Maybe only in print form- but they will still be there.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
All too true yet we do nothing about it.
That guy's voice is so annoying I can't watch the whole movie.
Once the narrator gets to "Googlezon" (Google + Amazon, get it?) I couldn't stand it any more.
Enjoy!
The time to do something about it is over 100 years in the past now. Unless somebody can build a time machine and assassinate the SCOTUS judges who awarded Southern Pacific Railroad "Personhood" status in 1886- we're stuck with Corporatism as the default for at least the next 1000 years.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There's a difference between saying things that support both sides, and hence being bi-partisan, or truly having a neutral view, and being non-partisan. Some people tend to think if you take the average of the magnitude some source leans in either political direction (why must people be so one dimensional?!) one can asses that source's true orientation. That's incorrect. The source would only be 'centrist' if it provided non-partisan information.
[rant]What ever happened to reporters, who report the facts? Nowadays all we have is journalists...who seem to keep a journal of their personal opinion and nothing more.[/rant]
big toupes? larger-than-usual fleas?
2 words, Bill Cliton
Ah, the ultimate straw man, Slick Willie. To those of us who aren't die-hard Democrats or Republicans, such a statement is silly at best. Criticism of Bush does not nessecarily imply support of Clinton.
And the moral of the story is:
Ordinary people can't be trusted to inform ourselves. We need "professional journalists" like the New York Times (home of Jayson Blair) to tell the rest of us chumps what to believe, because otherwise we might listen to multiple news sources and *gasp* FORM OUR OWN OPINIONS!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
There's still good journalism in America, but you have to read it, not watch it:
The New York Times is widely derided for having a "liberal bias," but there is still no paper in the US that covers as much of what is going on in the world today and presents as wide a range of intelligent and interesting commentary. The print edition is jam-packed with info, and while people complain about the fact that you have to register to get free news from NYT online, it's more than worth the money. ;-)
The Christian Science Monitor, despite the name is a scrupulously independent voice. Their print version is formatted not to bring you every ounce of news, but to pick and choose stories of interest from around the world. CSM doesn't focus on immediacy, which is quite refreshing in the era of instant news stories without any meat.
The Wall Street Journal takes flak because it represents the voice of The Man, but if you recognize that the Journal's bias is in favor of the capitalist marketplace, it's an excellent source of information. The reporting is solid and the range of coverage is impressive.
Getting back to the theme of going beyond knee-jerk immediacy, there are several excellent weekly and monthly magazines available in the states. I'm partial to The Economist, which is not published in the States, and so provides much more coverage of the rest off the world. I happen to agree with most of their editorial bias, but I sometimes disagree with it. One of the nice things about the Economist is that they state their views in a way that allows you to separate the facts from their views.
I'm also partial to The Atlantic, a monthly magazine that explores a wide range of issues. Their coverage of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq has been superb for its depth, range of viewpoints, and clarity.
There are plenty of other great news sources in the United States. I merely listed some of my favorites. My point is that if you expect the television to provide you with serious news coverage, you'll continue to be disappointed. If you take the time to sift through a few print publications, you may be amazed at what's out there.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm suprised no one mentioned that Googlezon.com is already up...
Although not sure about the authenticity of it.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Googlezon.
Googlezon.
Wait... I know how this ends. GoogleDot!
is it me, or did this animation start to become laughable right around when the narrator managed to spit out the phrases "Googlezon" and "Newsbotster" without laughing his ass off? i mean really, how much Vallium did this dude have to take to do that with a straight face?
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Somehow ABCNNBCBS, and therefore Disney, TimeWarner, GE, and Viacom all just give up their money and power in 6 years, even though they transformed from "old media" into the biggest, most popular websites. And the Supreme Court rules that Google can copy the NYT's copyrighted content without restriction, creating totally derivative works without compensation or attribution. And Microsoft "can't compete" with Google's "new algorithm" for personalized news.
This little Flash movie is a neat little media fnord. It's own existence, and possible influence, is a testiment itself to the new mediascape it weakly postulates. But it's not that insightful, except to predict the rise of new competitors, Microsoft and Google, in the mass media - much as Fox has risen from a novel combination of old media and the trivia, lies and sensationalism the movie accurately finds to drive the future media market. The future ain't what it used to be.
--
make install -not war
Are personalized news sites more shallow or more narrow? Compare a personalized news site to CNN. The unpersonalized front page of CNN provides only a shallow view targeting some mishmash of the general interests of millions of readers. By trying to satisfy everyone, it satisfies no one, a bland blend of interests that results in mediocrity.
Personalized news provides an opportunity to broaden reader's interests, exposing them to news sources, perspectives, and viewpoints they otherwise would never have seen. A personalized news aggregator provides both breadth and focus, sorting through huge numbers of sources and articles and helping you find what you need.
Personalized news helps you discover news you would otherwise miss. It makes it easier to get the information you need to be well-informed about the events that impact your life. If this is the future, it is a future which should excite us.
"Trust" and "honest" are two words that have no bearing in the news. I have my suspicions that this has always been so, and that stories of "the golden days" with Cronkite and Brinkley are just romanticizations of the past.
People want to be told what they want to hear, in the way they want to hear it. That is the reason that biased news sources survive, and not through the propping up of billionaires. People want to hear that the people they like are doing a good job, and that the people they don't are not. People want to hear how naughty those with fame and power are. People want to hear about scandalous murder cases and their trials.
The system described in the video would only streamline the current process. The only advantage to be gained from it would be the increased speed at which the flimflam would be produced and disseminated.
The fault, however, is not in our stars, nor, fully, our news angencies, but ourselves. This "dictatorial press" rules with a papier-mache power. News consumers are not locked in to any specific source. At any time, they can change the channel, take two steps to the side at the news stand, turn the dial, or surf to another site. We have come to a point where the reporterrs of the news are in such competition to grab eyes and ears, that one, in fact, has to make an effort not to brush up against multiple sources. As to the bias of those sources, it is the consumer who buys the story(with money, time, or both), not the news outlet forcing their consumption.
This, that you describe as a democratization of the news, would only reinforce our worst habits. Already too few people take in the news with a discerning eye and ear -- this system would seek to eliminate those entirely.
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
It made stars out of Woodward and Bernstien.
After that, people who normally would have gone into show biz went into journalism instead.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.