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.
"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
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.
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.
But the guy has a good sense of humour: the guy on the Googlezon ID card is called Winston Smith!
Not sure how this is different from CNN et al now.
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!
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?
Sounds interesting, where/when do I sign up? I just hope it comes before the MSMonopolyBoard!
But the guy has a good sense of humour: the guy on the Googlezon ID card is called Winston Smith!
I don't think that's a sense of humor--he's making a point. Epic 2014 is the modern media version of 1984. I can honestly say I was horrified by this film and just how real its prophesies could be. After all, even if Google doesn't do it, you know someone else will; this is such a profitable venture a company would have to be crazy to pass it up.
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
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
(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.
"The medium is the message" also indicates literally that the communication medium through which information is sent affects how we interpret it. The information is filtered differently NOT only because, for example, we think print media is more trustworthy than electronic media. Because we cognitively use different processes to listen to the radio and watch TV, we interpret the SAME message differently. JFK won the first televised presidential election, but Nixon won the same debate among radio listeners (though of course demographic probably had an effect too).
By their very nature, media change how we communicate (notice how most people write e-mail letters like they are talking rather than like snail mail letters?) and interpret information, so paper video displays and Google's fictious, omni-media GRID will change how we think and interface with others. The death of the New York Times in this story is indicative of the transformation (for better or worse) of ourselves due to the new media. When Guttenburg invented the movable-type printing press, it cause fundamental change in the dissemination of information and hence society. The question is not what would people choose to view on Google GRID/EPIC (the video's author is probably right), but how will it change how we think and interact?
most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia
And how is this different from network news today?
So you're objecting to the fact that they have streamlined the process so you get your products faster? If you buy items that ship within 24 hours, you have to expect that in at most 24 hours (assuming they're not running behind) you'll be unable to cancel your order.
----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
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.
Plus the flash animation works far better as part of a pitch for venture capital.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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
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
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.