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.

Comments

Already there?

[Anonymous Coward]

"most of them just get a bunch of untrue gossip and sensasionalist trivia"

Isn't this already true for the American "real press"?

Re:Already there?

[Anonymous Coward]

toss in a open-source reference or two and you've got /.

Re:Already there?

[Greslin]

Hasn't it always?

Seriously, anyone who thinks that this is anything new - or something whipped up by this newfangled Internet thing - needs to go grab a book called "The Image: A Guide To Psuedo-Events In America", by historian Daniel Boorstin. Written in 1961, it examines the history of public relations in America during the twentieth century. The book is mainly about how folks discovered that you don't actually need a real event in order to have news. Just create a *reaction*, regardless of whether it was justified by reality, and then report on the reaction.

Boorstin predicted that if things didn't change, the American entertainment and news gathering industries would eventually merge. Rather than accurately reporting the facts, the overriding goal would be to capture and maintain an audience.

Funny part is, when the book came out in 1962, Boorstin was traveling in Europe. Time magazine (IIRC) called him a traitor for suggesting that Americans would be so stupid to allow such a thing to happen.

Could be good... could be bad

[eno2001]

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