8 Bit Philosophy: Can We Trust the News? (Baudrillard)
- Thread starter 8-Bit Philosophy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not every source is equally reliable, little things called cross-referencing and checking sources help to eliminate the more completely bollocks contributions.
Such has always been the way, more accessible recording and sharing of information has not changed this, (arguably even the creation of advertisements changed little) people can lie, be deluded or spread misinformation for personal gain and have done so as long as humans have been able to communicate.
Hell, on the matter of audience participation, that dates all the way back to the earliest stories spread by word of mouth, treated as sacrosanct or doubted intensely depending on the whims of the listener and how credible the source seems, rather than necessarily is.
Rather than trying to turn a facet of basic human nature into a specifically modern malaise, this philosopher might have been better advised to look more closely at the roots of such deception.
Such has always been the way, more accessible recording and sharing of information has not changed this, (arguably even the creation of advertisements changed little) people can lie, be deluded or spread misinformation for personal gain and have done so as long as humans have been able to communicate.
Hell, on the matter of audience participation, that dates all the way back to the earliest stories spread by word of mouth, treated as sacrosanct or doubted intensely depending on the whims of the listener and how credible the source seems, rather than necessarily is.
Rather than trying to turn a facet of basic human nature into a specifically modern malaise, this philosopher might have been better advised to look more closely at the roots of such deception.
Leviadragon99, whilst you've made some interesting point i don't feel you've actually refuted anything stated in the video.
Whilst i can and will accept your point about audience particiapation, the idea that these tendencies are ancient doesn't change the fact that they are still true today. By that i mean that many of us will accept what we're told, lies and all, unless we're directly or tangentially involved, and things like the internet just makes it easier for us to find more and more information that we treat, as you stated, according to our whims and our perception of the source.
Essentially what I'm saying is that your post sounds like it's arguing against the points made in the video but from where i stand both points of view seem to be valid and true at the same time and there doesn't need to be any contention between them. what's true now has been true before and will be true again.
obviously this is philosophy and there are going to be unending debates both here and elsewhere over the validity of the ideas presented, and this is just one opinion among many, so we'll all have to make up our own minds.
Also the statements made in the video are very sweeping and there are going to be degrees of culpability, of course some sources are more reliable than others and a little work on the part of the consumer can help to eliminate the worst offenders and validate the honest ones.
Whilst i can and will accept your point about audience particiapation, the idea that these tendencies are ancient doesn't change the fact that they are still true today. By that i mean that many of us will accept what we're told, lies and all, unless we're directly or tangentially involved, and things like the internet just makes it easier for us to find more and more information that we treat, as you stated, according to our whims and our perception of the source.
Essentially what I'm saying is that your post sounds like it's arguing against the points made in the video but from where i stand both points of view seem to be valid and true at the same time and there doesn't need to be any contention between them. what's true now has been true before and will be true again.
obviously this is philosophy and there are going to be unending debates both here and elsewhere over the validity of the ideas presented, and this is just one opinion among many, so we'll all have to make up our own minds.
Also the statements made in the video are very sweeping and there are going to be degrees of culpability, of course some sources are more reliable than others and a little work on the part of the consumer can help to eliminate the worst offenders and validate the honest ones.
Doh, video won't play for some reason. Using Chrome, should be up to date. I tried the latest No Right Answer and Game Theory videos for comparison and they played fine.
This gives me the sadz, as I like this series. Exiled from the Desert of the Real!
Edit: Interesting, I can watch the video, but only if I'm not logged in. This must mean that my artificial persona of "StatusNil" renders my status as a viewer to nil, whereas if I relinquish the pseudo-agency of comment-enabled "member" of the virtual "community" and adopt a passive spectatorship, the very lack of subjective locus allows entry and egress in relation to the representational space. The hyperreal nature of this spatial configuration both enables and denies aspects of personhood in perpetual flux of modulated aporia.
This gives me the sadz, as I like this series. Exiled from the Desert of the Real!
Edit: Interesting, I can watch the video, but only if I'm not logged in. This must mean that my artificial persona of "StatusNil" renders my status as a viewer to nil, whereas if I relinquish the pseudo-agency of comment-enabled "member" of the virtual "community" and adopt a passive spectatorship, the very lack of subjective locus allows entry and egress in relation to the representational space. The hyperreal nature of this spatial configuration both enables and denies aspects of personhood in perpetual flux of modulated aporia.
Oh you had to go there about Wrestling, didn't you. And then not even try to contextualize what is meant by "not real", considering that just recently a wrestler died in the ring. How's that for wrestling being "not real"? Yeah, they know who's going to win before the match beings (usually), so the outcomes aren't in question, but the rest of it? Real as hell.
*cough*
Beyond that, the media isn't to be trusted as it's merely advertising for itself. Give people what they want to consume so they'll consume via watching/reading/listening/clicking/etc., and the more people who do, the higher that media outlet can charge for other people to advertise on that outlet. That's it. That's all. They try to stay within the legal definition of what is acceptable to say (and to not say) and the legal way to say it ("Does Hillary Clinton bathe in the blood of virgin Feminists? FoxNews asks the questions so you don't have to!"), but beyond that they do whatever they need to so they can grow their consumer base and make money.
*cough*
Beyond that, the media isn't to be trusted as it's merely advertising for itself. Give people what they want to consume so they'll consume via watching/reading/listening/clicking/etc., and the more people who do, the higher that media outlet can charge for other people to advertise on that outlet. That's it. That's all. They try to stay within the legal definition of what is acceptable to say (and to not say) and the legal way to say it ("Does Hillary Clinton bathe in the blood of virgin Feminists? FoxNews asks the questions so you don't have to!"), but beyond that they do whatever they need to so they can grow their consumer base and make money.
Haha, this was a good one. I ultimately feel that you cannot trust the news. Especially when news sites and news stations and newspapers commonly source their news from other news sites/papers/stations. I'm not saying that they don't report real news or that they are all corrupt, I'm simply saying that it's just becoming impossible to discern the truth without intense amounts of work, something the news is supposed to do for you. Also, news doesn't exist without a reporters editorialization anymore. Another flaw of the common practice these days.
It's just strange to me how people so easily accept being told what is important or what is truth. We can't know everything or be aware of everything, nor are humans mentally equipped to handle news or events that is happening hundreds or thousands of miles away.
It's just strange to me how people so easily accept being told what is important or what is truth. We can't know everything or be aware of everything, nor are humans mentally equipped to handle news or events that is happening hundreds or thousands of miles away.
fair point, his was the post just above mine so i didn't think it would be hard to find. then again as you can probably tell from my post count i'm not exactly an experienced forum user. I'll take that into acount next time.Baresark said:It might be best if you quoted the user. That way there can be a rational discourse... something the internet is famous for these days.Gwyn Miller said:
To respond to your contention that I and the philosopher were "both right" The point I was trying to make was that said philosopher seemed to be implying or even outright claiming that the root of these negative tendencies lay with the advancement of certain technologies, a point that I very much disagreed with.Gwyn Miller said:
No-one is denying those trends are demonstrated with depressing regularity, but it was that conclusion in particular that struck me as a digression from the actual point to be had.
My problem with the "philosophy" here is simply that the wrong conclusion is being drawn. That is from my point of view as a media journalist myself.
I don't deny that the corporation I work for sells advertising, and that is how it makes money. And perhaps I can tell the difference because I'm exposed to it so much, but on my radio station only a listener who is a complete moron couldn't decipher the difference between a news report and a paid advertisement. The only ads that even happen outside of an announced commercial break are sponsor tags that contain language IDENTIFYING themselves as a paid advertisement.
Now that means that I must work for the ONLY honest media company, right? But (and again maybe my familiarity with the subject means I'm overestimating the intelligence of the general audience) I can tell the difference between news sources that do things the right way and ones (like Fox and MSNBC) that slant things and blur the borders between news and ads, news and commentary/opinion. I know exactly what's paid for and what's not on ABC. I can watch CBS news and tell the difference between a reporter, and a commentator. In just about any news medium I can find a piece constructed with facts, and easily tell them from apart from a puff piece submitted to beat a deadline on a slow day.
Again, maybe my "insider" knowledge makes it easier for me than the average person. But sorry, it seems to me that the average media consumer... is pretty stupid. Making the problem mostly their fault.
Well not really. Actual stupidity can be the tragic result of a number of causes, some of them tragically are not the fault of the "stupid" individual themselves. People in those circumstances can be properly educated (in most cases) solving the problem. The real problem is willful stupidity. The large and increasing number of people who want only to listen to the "news they agree with." That's why Fox and MSNBC exist. Why they're so popular. If the demand weren't there, the supply wouldn't have been created for it. Instead of looking to the reporting methods of an outlet to determine if they are trustworthy, most consumers look to the stories themselves to determine what to watch and who to listen to and who to trust. Choosing to trust the person they WANT to be right rather than simply the person who's telling the truth.
As for "technology," it's the same just on a wider scale. Chose sources wisely. I happen to like snopes for debunking all sorts of "stories going around." I see people claiming bias at snopes, but I also see snopes citing their sources to near academic perfection.
To me it just seems like choosing the truth isn't that hard. I guess the counter would be "how do you know what you believe IS the truth." Well, it ISN'T effortless. But rather than "trust, but verify" I've always liked "verify, then you can trust." But it seems like most people find that too difficult. Which is a problem I don't blame on "the media..."
I don't deny that the corporation I work for sells advertising, and that is how it makes money. And perhaps I can tell the difference because I'm exposed to it so much, but on my radio station only a listener who is a complete moron couldn't decipher the difference between a news report and a paid advertisement. The only ads that even happen outside of an announced commercial break are sponsor tags that contain language IDENTIFYING themselves as a paid advertisement.
Now that means that I must work for the ONLY honest media company, right? But (and again maybe my familiarity with the subject means I'm overestimating the intelligence of the general audience) I can tell the difference between news sources that do things the right way and ones (like Fox and MSNBC) that slant things and blur the borders between news and ads, news and commentary/opinion. I know exactly what's paid for and what's not on ABC. I can watch CBS news and tell the difference between a reporter, and a commentator. In just about any news medium I can find a piece constructed with facts, and easily tell them from apart from a puff piece submitted to beat a deadline on a slow day.
Again, maybe my "insider" knowledge makes it easier for me than the average person. But sorry, it seems to me that the average media consumer... is pretty stupid. Making the problem mostly their fault.
Well not really. Actual stupidity can be the tragic result of a number of causes, some of them tragically are not the fault of the "stupid" individual themselves. People in those circumstances can be properly educated (in most cases) solving the problem. The real problem is willful stupidity. The large and increasing number of people who want only to listen to the "news they agree with." That's why Fox and MSNBC exist. Why they're so popular. If the demand weren't there, the supply wouldn't have been created for it. Instead of looking to the reporting methods of an outlet to determine if they are trustworthy, most consumers look to the stories themselves to determine what to watch and who to listen to and who to trust. Choosing to trust the person they WANT to be right rather than simply the person who's telling the truth.
As for "technology," it's the same just on a wider scale. Chose sources wisely. I happen to like snopes for debunking all sorts of "stories going around." I see people claiming bias at snopes, but I also see snopes citing their sources to near academic perfection.
To me it just seems like choosing the truth isn't that hard. I guess the counter would be "how do you know what you believe IS the truth." Well, it ISN'T effortless. But rather than "trust, but verify" I've always liked "verify, then you can trust." But it seems like most people find that too difficult. Which is a problem I don't blame on "the media..."
I love this show and it's open ended nature. It presents the ideas to they viewer and encourages them to determine their merit for themselves.
The video game based presentation is just a nice bonus.
Thank you for this show!
The video game based presentation is just a nice bonus.
Thank you for this show!
You make a good point (again) and the general theme of things on this thread seem to be that technology isn't at fault, people are. I hesitate to lay the blame at the feet of the consumer specifically, although we could spend a bit more time checking sources etc, but as kyrian007 reminded me in his post (sorry don't know how to do multiple quotes in one post), the companies are made up of people as well.leviadragon99 said:
Many of those companies are run as businesses and are in it for the money, so they tailor their channels to the lowest common denominator. I think it's fair say that there are likely just as many "honest" news outlets that are trying to deliver relavent news but have to use advertising to stay afloat.
I think it's also fair to remind ourselves that we're looking at years (probably, i haven't actually read it) of Baudrillard's life and work summed up in a two minute video and there's likely a lot of details we're missing.
two things, while not fixing, will alievate the problem somewhat.
1. transparency. all the transparency. Any occupation providing public service, regardless whether the company doing it is private or not, should adhere to strick transparency standards that allows easy tracking of what they are doing.
2. Advertisement regulation. when "Native advertisement" is no longer a boogeyman in sci-fi but a reality, you know the current regulation is broken.
1. transparency. all the transparency. Any occupation providing public service, regardless whether the company doing it is private or not, should adhere to strick transparency standards that allows easy tracking of what they are doing.
2. Advertisement regulation. when "Native advertisement" is no longer a boogeyman in sci-fi but a reality, you know the current regulation is broken.
I think that basing this on Post Modernism is a red herring to begin with. Post Modernism denies the existence of an objective truth and so, through it's lens it is always going to be impossible to tell if Paul McCartney is alive or dead (Or locked in a box with a vial of poison and a radioactive atom).
However, discerning an objective truth when we have this much data to work with requires more work than many would choose to put into it. This leads us to select people to do it for us who become our News media. They are supposed to be the ones to sift the data and figure out what is going on so that we stay informed. It's the same way that Representative Democracy works. We elect people to make decisions and thus delegate our power on decisions to them in the hopes they will do a good job.
The issue you highlight comes from the corruption of this system in general. When news ceases to be about finding the truth and more about supporting a Narrative (Pick one, there's a fuckton) then it loses all function and people begin to drift away from it. After this the news media becomes more and more desperate for money to sustain itself, resorting to native advertising and other forms of malaise. Even the venerable papers of the UK like the Daily Telegraph have succumbed to this blight as one of their departing staff named Peter Obourne revealed.
However, Clickbait, Native Advertising and pushing an extreme narrative are only short term methods of survival for the media and they operate on razor thin profit margins. These methods slowly push away more and more readers which causes the publication to either pull out of it's nosedive and attempt to reform itself OR double, triple, quadruple down on these faulty stratagems in an effort to stay afloat a little while longer.
In the end this problem is not a problem of Philosophy in the way you mentioned it. It is a problem with human nature and the way in which the news media has been changed by an addiction to quick clickbait bucks over long term investment in reliable, objective truth.
However, discerning an objective truth when we have this much data to work with requires more work than many would choose to put into it. This leads us to select people to do it for us who become our News media. They are supposed to be the ones to sift the data and figure out what is going on so that we stay informed. It's the same way that Representative Democracy works. We elect people to make decisions and thus delegate our power on decisions to them in the hopes they will do a good job.
The issue you highlight comes from the corruption of this system in general. When news ceases to be about finding the truth and more about supporting a Narrative (Pick one, there's a fuckton) then it loses all function and people begin to drift away from it. After this the news media becomes more and more desperate for money to sustain itself, resorting to native advertising and other forms of malaise. Even the venerable papers of the UK like the Daily Telegraph have succumbed to this blight as one of their departing staff named Peter Obourne revealed.
However, Clickbait, Native Advertising and pushing an extreme narrative are only short term methods of survival for the media and they operate on razor thin profit margins. These methods slowly push away more and more readers which causes the publication to either pull out of it's nosedive and attempt to reform itself OR double, triple, quadruple down on these faulty stratagems in an effort to stay afloat a little while longer.
In the end this problem is not a problem of Philosophy in the way you mentioned it. It is a problem with human nature and the way in which the news media has been changed by an addiction to quick clickbait bucks over long term investment in reliable, objective truth.
I have to say that the voice work and the style of the images in the video reminds me a lot of the old Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy TV series which I utterly adore:Glen Compton said:
The question is ridiculous because it presupposes that there was EVER a time that we could trust the news.
We've always needed to fact check and it isn't until recently that we've been able to do so, so readily. We can use the news as a sort of story curation and then fact check the details to verify.
If anything, the thing we can't trust the most is what's not being told. Hard to fact check something you're completely unaware exists.
We've always needed to fact check and it isn't until recently that we've been able to do so, so readily. We can use the news as a sort of story curation and then fact check the details to verify.
If anything, the thing we can't trust the most is what's not being told. Hard to fact check something you're completely unaware exists.