Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

This goes back to the 80s. It may be in overdrive now, but this effort has been underway for a while. Which is why we are where we are now. It is extremely difficult to know something these days outside one's own area of expertise.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I don't think that is true, nor do I think you can't remain reasonably informed on the issues.

[hack]

I think it's 100% true. You can be more informed than the average person, but that's only relative. I can attest to the greater difficulty in getting solid information out of Washington. I was here as a grad student and intern in '97 and had far, far more access to information than I have now. I have to go through the back door just to be allowed to walk in the front door these days. And I don't write shit or make enemies. Government breaks its own transparency laws every day in how they handle media. In some cases I don't blame them for wanting to avoid some media, but laws are laws, and some cases aren't all cases. The WaPo itself is full of smart and connected people. They're, obviously, having a harder time of it too. I don't know how somebody who has a full-time job isn't going to. Knowing what's going on is a full-time job.

[Wild Hoss]

Using the fake news moniker for news that is not really fake is to the advantage of those that have benefited from true fake news (cough...cough Donald Trump...cough cough)

Well, we can't be having the media gang up on Donald by quoting what he says can we?

Invent the truth that you need.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think it's 100% true.

I certainly respect your viewpoint on this.

Having said that, I do not think there is some kind of institutional, both public and private, dark conspiracy to prevent the public from knowing.

What I do think is happening is somewhat of an over-reaction by institutions to the crap that is called "journalism" or "the news," while at the same time we have this wide exposure to potential unwarranted damage caused by misinformation associated with social media. This is on top of the tendency of these same institutions, and people who by the type work they do, to maintain some level of legitimate privacy.

So, given that circumstance, I'm willing to take the time to dig to find out what I need to know to take an informed position on whatever issue I want to take one on ...... and that is selective and therefore naturally limiting to the time I have to spend to do that.

[hack]

As I said, in some cases it's a fair response. I think it's fair to consider a chicken/egg question here, as media didn't suck this bad before the DC secrecy regime exploded in size. But, bottom-line, there are laws and they aren't being followed. It's not a conspiracy, but from government agency to agency there's a common theme and it shows up in different ways. I run into a middle/senior official a few times a year who opens up access for me, listens with a sympathetic ear when I tell them what their media people have done, and then it's my turn to listen sympathetically while they complain about how their media people screw up the messaging. And after those people have facilitated access for me -- in essence have told their own media people to provide the access they are legally required to -- I sometimes have to continually return to those officials to keep the access going. Some media people understand how to tell the difference between reporters, but increasingly those people are less common. It's a symptom of dysfunction rather than a conspiracy, but there are common threads. Recall, when you talk about ``legitimate privacy'', that means something different for public servants. In the end, at some point, I hope people stop blaming the media, but I don't think that's gonna happen. It is difficult to carry the analysis through all the way.

[Wild Hoss]

All organizations are clamping down on transparency because image-control is critical in the Social Media age, where a meme can ruin a career in a day or a Tweet can crash a stock in hours. Government, corporation, charity, celebrity, your local dogcatcher...they are all terrified of being caught in a social media storm because somebody said the wrong thing at the wrong time. Rightfully so.

More access, less information. Quite the contradiction.

[Wild Hoss]

One thing that gives me hope is the idea that "Social Media Society" is still in its infancy. Over time the populace will become more savvy at separating the wheat from the chaff in our expanded media environment, re-establishing some baselines for information and thus, discourse. I hope.

The current growing pains may be difficult to bear however.

[Wild Hoss]

In utterly unsurprising news, the WSJ reports that the Trump administration has formulated plans for a pare down of the CIA. Let the purges commence.

[iam416]

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

[entropy]

It is scary.

They are laying the groundwork to discredit all reputable media sources. There will be nothing that people will believe when it is time to question the crap that will spew from Trump's Propaganda Minister. People ate it up during the election. They will eat it up after.

And if anyone is going to post "But the liberal media..." Just stop.

I think ALL media is doing a fine job with the discrediting. There is such a rush to beat a blogger or be first, they've become really sloppy.. and end up creating fake stories. And I'd suggest this those stories got more traction than some blogger. jmo

[hack]

I think that's a really unfortunate attitude. I don't think it's too much to ask that media consumers appreciate the difference between wrong intentionally and wrong unintentionally. Ultimately, like anything else though, you get what you pay for, and as the degree of difficulty increases the amount of talent available is smaller. A great symbolic expression of this is that you can read the WSJ's editorials, columnists and bloggers for free, but you have to pay for the actual reported content. IMO one way a person could overcome this problem is by paying for your news and ignoring anyone who gives it away plus Murdoch's papers. That would limit you to reading The Economist, The Financial Times, The New Yorker, and a few others. One could do a lot worse.

[entropy]

hack.. who determines intent? you? me? there is a lack of trust..

[hack]

You can read fake news, read a mainstream newspaper, and tell the difference. A news story is transparent, in that you are told where the information comes from. There aren't unsupported assertions, assumptions, suggested correlations, or other types of hints. Things that aren't verifiable independently are usually attributed to an authority.

You could also check your assumption against common sense. You are saying essentially that the mass of journalists got into it because they want to lie to people. Does that make sense to you?

[entropy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/quitting-your-job-and-other-life-choices/495122/

Interesting and seems reasonably true. I think people are probably less happy trying to decide. Tough to study, but interesting.