# Many hate Trump, but he's the one who popularized the term "fake news"



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2020)

It's kind of annoying that tons of people and media outlets use this term to "expose" news they may think are fake (or they just say because they disagree with). False news have always existed and there's a quote that perfectly leaves one speechless:





​I don't remember who said this quote, but time and time again the media sure loves to twist the truth to include some bits to make it even "better" or spicy. All in all, Trump just blurred the lines even more by bringing it up although it wasn't his fault.


----------



## AmandaRose (Feb 14, 2020)

The quote was by Mark Twain.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 14, 2020)

Sensationalized news irritates me to no end. It's the worst thing to have happened to us socially. When every story is a drama and every office has their political bent, it's no wonder we're becoming so polarized.

The worst part of all is that straight news just doesn't sell.


----------



## emigre (Feb 14, 2020)

What is the purpose of this thread? Unless you're very naive, I would hope most adults appreciate bias and increasingly more so irresponsible misleading journalism. And people have been slagging it off for years.

My favourite quote on the media is by Nye Bevan, he once described the British press as being 'the most prostituted press in the world.' To put this into context I understand he said this in the 1940s.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 14, 2020)

emigre said:


> What is the purpose of this thread? Unless you're very naive, I would hope most adults appreciate bias and increasingly more so irresponsible misleading journalism. And people have been slagging it off for years.
> 
> My favourite quote on the media is by Nye Bevan, he once described the British press as being 'the most prostituted press in the world.' To put this into context I understand he said this in the 1940s.


It's that as I mentioned some adults genuinely use "take news" as their defense when it's not even the case, but it's not the only label that people use to put down others. Almost as if words have lost their true meaning.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2020)

fake news


----------



## Chary (Feb 15, 2020)

I do think Trump helped push people's awareness towards media outlets distributing false facts or sensationalist headlines, but he himself unintentionally also pushed people towards that realization as well, with his own statements that sometimes came without any verification or facts to back it up. 

Now it's just the equivalent of calling someone a nazi. "I disagree with it, so it's fake news!" A boogeyman term so that people don't have to deal with facts that may go against their worldview. "It's all fake, I don't care what you say, I'm always right". 

And that cheapens the entire argument of the media being biased, or trying to serve a particular demographic's views, or creating sensationalist headlines/hyperbole for the sake of getting hits/sales. But even so, it's not something that'll go away. Much as people claim they hate that type of news, it's been around for longer than any of us have been alive, and it is, at the end of the day, what sells. Especially in this hyper-aggressive culture of wanting to feel the self-satisfaction of being better than others, or just seeing so much media in a day, that the only ones that catch your attention are ones that are designed to cause arguments or enrage.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2020)

Take a Trump is a victim stance.
Conflate that with politics.
Use a square black and white meme.
Dont look up who authored a quote.
Lie that he was the prototypical journalist. (He was a journalist at a local paper. Local papers were mostly ad and gossip rags for the benefit of local business communities. (With a few notable exceptions))

Make this thread about how the media should be more grateful to Trump for bringing them closer to the edge of inexistance. (Riling up public opinion against journalism.)

Spew something about truth mattering in the process.

If you know nothing, and you feel something, better resort to post memes, right?
-

Here are a few concepts you could look at.

- Yellow press model as fashioned by Rupert Murdoch
Relies on the lowest common denominator, is out there to entertain, exploit human attention mechanisms and sell.

- Click bait journalism model, best (imho) described by Ryan Holiday (Trust Me, I'm Lying)
Relies on the lowest common denominator, is out there to exploit human attention mechanisms and sell.

- TV broadcast journalism model
Based on finding a good image - relying on news paper journalism for the rest.

- News paper journalism, now with 10x the actuality pressure and -80% of staff. And minus 80% of a cut of total advertising budgets. Those where the guys that formerly had larger editorial staff quotas, and actually people going after stories.

- News wires, not at all financed through ad money.

- Social media - not  journalism at all - but claiming to be a great broker of stuff you'd love to see. Nowadays gets more than 2/3s of all online ad revenues.

- Influencer with podcast - joke, sellout (if not at first, eventually (simply because its hard to keep quality constant int the environment they are in, as a one person chop shop - and the ad economy as implemented by facebook and google favors SENSATIONALISM!)
--

So what do you want to talk about? How Trump was essential in pointing out a problem, or the deviancy of the journalistic class?

Both of those are lies.

If you want to point out that journalistic institution models (f.e. billionaire owned) also influence what is written or shown. Yes, not in the direct way you'd think, but more with company culture, and selection biases in recruitment. The only way around that is to have a healthy ecosystem - where multiple outlets can compete.

Since the public - even before Trump decided it would be a boon not to pay for journalism anymore - and googles and facebooks 'first person that posts a story gets most eyes' mantra increased speed to the point, where as a journalist - doing journalism is now the least part of your job - you now can reap the benefits of having done everything to destroy public value in that sector.

Ways around this.

- Publicly co-funded mass outlets like NPR, or the BBC
- Research collectives (research now only pays if several outlets pool journalism on bigger projects)
- Billionaire owners, who have the paper write nothing bad about them and their interests, but at least can finance bigger editorial offices - constantly loosing money, without having to necessarily reduce quality. (Not quite philanthropy, but close)
- Prescription only models, for certain journalists who fashion themselves experts in a field (more paid stock market advice than anything else).

Every other form, doesnt seem to work. (Well, the Guardian made it work recently, as one open/prescrition and ad financed liberal outlet. One, for the entire english speaking market. They did it by resorting heavily to clickbait stories, and 'frames' that people liked. Only cut back part of their staff. The issue here is, that this is one of the most famous english speaking newspapers in the world. If that 'just' scales using the old model - goodbye everyone else..  )

To get anything close to 'constant quality' you need a bunch of people at the same outlet, following something like an ethos.

This still gives you biases, the same way as a billionaire owner will, but if interests (who sponsers a paper) arent uniform (which they arent, when there are many bigger news outlets around), it also gives you some diversity.

If you have one to five dudes, working under youtube style advertiser criteria, and google style 'it only pays to be first' pressures, you get anything but journalism. Bloggers suck at this. (More interested in brand creation and maintaining, than research.)

At the same time - Trump maybe knows two and a half political concepts, and is mostly employed to do the same he did as a spokesperson for the Trump brand, which was owned by banks for quite some while now. He promotes ventures and businesses. The end. He doesnt know jack. He lies. But he also entertains. And if he's not pulling any political strings - the country can be run around him, with him playing some sort of symbolic leader figure that no one in business really cares about. First he sets of an economic battle with china, then he relaxes it. Horray. First he promises for factory jobs to return from china and mexico, then he realizes, that they have already been automated away. Horray. Something, something wall. Fake Media. Horray.

The biggest part of all of it is open far right propaganda. Which goes like this.

- we are relatively new as a political fraction.
- we are relatively extreme in our believes.

Therefore mainstream media isn't covering us yet. (Changes once you get a little more established).

- we have our own payed off website outlets (think 'union press', so media outlets that are owned by the same people paying for most of the parties activities).

We have great idea - we make up highly emotionally catching fear based stories, and tell people mainstream media is withholding that information from them because - they be peddling fake news.

New coined term explodes in usage. (For example during the european migration crisis. Where societal practices prevented early adequate reporting. (noone wanting to be declared a racist or hurting state interests - public felt in larger groups that reality wasnt reported anymore. Media has to make the term 'their own' because everybody and their uncle is using it. While shouting at them.)

Also - there is really only one political opinion that is spread by most people on gbatemp, and that is 'how unfair is it, that something Trump - I heard about it in this meme *posts meme*'.

Which is no political opinion at all.

Also what Trump does, doesnt matter at all, what he thinks, far, far less so.

American economy is certainly not doing well because of what he did, but despite of it.

(If you want to know why - his administration basically gave tax exemptions to the ultra rich, which then didnt manifest itself in increased investments in the US (or the west), the economy is still mostly consumption driven (no new business sectors - just increase consumption spending and tell people that they don't need any money for a house, for old age - thats also growth baby!), which only has limited pull - and everybody still is very excited that some stock market indicators went to new highs (which is where tax breaks went - too much money in the economy, too few investment opportunities for it that would produce real world economic growth, in western economies)). There is a feeling of 'sustained progress' though ('best year ever' in some indicator that means nothing to the average person), that makes everybody kind of happy.)

So what do you want to talk about? That facebook isn't journalism? Yes, and?

Sasha Baron Cohan did a rant on a concept similar to yours recently ( h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM ). People basically realize, that the gatekeeper function of conventional media is gone ("pointing out - what matters"), and are utterly confused and angry that common ground was replaced by a multitude of opinion bubbles.

(This issue:
 )

At the same time they still complain as if "tha media" would still work their old function, and would be the only thing, that hold away their political godking from being accepted, as a universal god like entity. Now that can only be explained, by them eating political propaganda by the spoonfull.

"Tha media" can not both simultaneously fail economically, loose all gatekeeper functions, and still be the untrustworthy "kingmaker".

Also journalism was always a for profit entity. Which means at least from the perspective of the owners, it never was 'first and foremost about the truth'. For journalists - it still always at least partly was. (It was also about getting special access, and not loosing it ('exclusive interview'), and about international networks, partly political, and it was about at least cooperating with the state, if you got larger - to a certain agree - but at least journalism on its own had some power. (The entire mass media concept resolves around 'engineering consent', creating a common narrative). And was paid for by the reader, so that was who you 'worked for' ideally. Now - much less so.

Journalism working to 'report the truth' maybe was more of a market economy effect. If your paper reported untrue stuff it could be berated and one upped by your competitors, so everyone had an incentive to report 'truly' (ethos formed) as much as not to get called out by competitors. Journalists having a self image as 'facilitators of the truth' (pillar of society) actually was a working side effect for quite some time. Now in the internet age where everyone gets a voice and the means of production, and distribution is handed out by facebook by popularity - that pretty much broke. And if that hadn't done it - more economic pressures on journalists certainly did.

In the end this means higher market concentration (only a few big papers remaining that 'do' journalism). Which is not ideal. While the general public doesnt think about paying for journalism anymore. And would rather click puppy videos on that insta. (Attention economy - its not as if they'd be bored otherwise - the illusion to be informed for watercooler talk is more than enough or most people.) That function facebook caters to sufficiently. That can be done by some algo -  no human needed. That function (commentary) could also be served by some podcaster or radio shock jock. (You dont need journalism for that.)

Also in the past you had maybe 4-10 ideologies that made up the public narrative for the majority. Now every small small societal entity finds itself on the internet and makes up their own bubble. You cant reflect all of those. Even if all of them think themselves very important. Then selection mostly goes by followercount (popularity) which never is a good indicator for anything - much less something you'd call truth.

This means "lowest common denominator" - becomes more and more of an ideal image society wide.

Everything now sounds like a commercial as well, because every company, every small project, every product campaign and every human being, wants to 'optimize' their messaging, and reach a lot of people. Which you theoretically can. This leans into social media giants being marketing companies at their heart and in their finance models.

So what of that does fake news cover now exactly?


----------



## ghjfdtg (Feb 15, 2020)

The only times i use "fake news" is when making jokes or memes. And it's exactly that. A joke taken too seriously.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 15, 2020)

One problem is that when Trump cries about fake news, said news is actually true. You may as well create a topic about how even though many hate Trump, he invented the phrase Make America Great Again... which would be every bit of "fake news" as this topic is.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2020)

ghjfdtg said:


> The only times i use "fake news" is when making jokes or memes. And it's exactly that. A joke taken too seriously.


Jokes?

I would call memes (as used in political messaging) something different.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/ne...-use-of-memes-by-political-candidates/572381/

I've been to established political events where a year after I was there (so, basically I couldnt protest is what I'm saying  ) 'fun meme creation challenges" were held, to get a leg up in actual election campaigns.

edit: Here is the link to Trumps "social media summit" (get the disenfranchised into the White House for a day) again: https://gbatemp.net/threads/trump-holds-white-house-event-for-social-influencers.543365/

Do you still think of them as fun jokes?


----------



## ghjfdtg (Feb 15, 2020)

@notimp 
I think you are misunderstanding. I'm making fun of "fake news". Not using it against anyone. And i think anyone who uses it seriously against legit media is a moron and not better than Trump.


----------



## notimp (Feb 15, 2020)

Wasnt a personal slant. And yes memes are jokes as well.  But in the political field they are used more 'targeted' nowadays. Of course. Like everything is. 

(I was instigating.  )


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I don't remember who said this quote, but time and time again the media sure loves to twist the truth to include some bits to make it even "better" or spicy.


I just want to remark on this that the quote isn't meant as an excuse to throw objectism out the window but as a means that people enjoy a good story irragardless of whether or not it is true. That's why so many fictional stories exist. And comics. And movies that are "based on" true events (which basically mean that the complexity of real life is reduced in order to make the story more apprehensable). Heck...even jokes throw out actual reality in order to better hit a punchline.




Chary said:


> I do think Trump helped push people's awareness towards media outlets distributing false facts or sensationalist headlines, but he himself unintentionally also pushed people towards that realization as well, with his own statements that sometimes came without any verification or facts to back it up.


Pushing people's awareness? No...unfortunately, I think that at best goes for a minority. From what I perceive, it is used as a wall to shield yourself from what you don't want to hear.

The problem is that reality is a rather messy situation. We are simply unable to perceive every little detail "as it is", so our brain is hardwired to make generalisations. It helps us get by (focussing on something invariably means losing focus of the rest), but has the nasty habit of creating blind spots. And these are known, and (admittedly) sometimes blatantly and agressively used by media who want to push an agenda.

Example: a car hits a pedestrian. Different newspapers (and self proclaimed news sources on the internet) can report it as follows:
-pedestrian got hit by car when crossing the street
-woman driver roadkills a man
-black driver drives over local resident. May have been on purpose

All of these messages can be true at the same time, but each paint a very different picture. Does it say something about women's abilities to drive? Should the pedestrian have looked better? And is the skin colors of those involved really a coincidence?

...and that's just the surface. News stations have much more power in chosing which articles to give air time, which NOT to air and how to bring it (climate change, for example, is usually brought as a matter of conflicting opinions. By the time it is revealed that one source is unreliable and far in the minority, the story has lost its relevance and the audience believes there isn't a concensus when all real scientists agree on the important parts).

Which brings us to Donald. In a way, I respect it that you give him some benefit of the doubt, but "<Trump's> statements that sometimes came without any verification" is like saying that "the sun may sometimes rise in the East".

Media have made a grave error in the 2016 election by giving him way more airtime than allocated, for the very simple reason that it was juicy ("oooh...he insulted THAT senator? That'll make great headlines!  "). That's his main strength, by the way: play the media. As much as he claims 'false news', all he really wants is push his agenda (heck...when he was acquitted, he couldn't show the world often enough). And he's pretty proactive in that.
"Oh, he caught me in doing something illegal? Better make sure to ruin their credibility before he gets the word out!".
The only flaw in this is that sooner or later, truth floats to the surface. And to drown out that he has lied and bullied on top of the original acusation, he has to create a new story that's even more sensational. Which he does. Which is why things are spiraling into ever weirder territories of madness...


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Feb 17, 2020)

He may have popularized it among Fox news viewers but it had already been in use on the internet, I think. At least in Germany its equivalent ("lying press") had already been used very frequently during the Ukraine crisis.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Feb 17, 2020)

That thread title makes it sound like a good thing lol


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 17, 2020)

Dont yall get that trump tweets and says stupid shit just to troll the media. It keeps him in the news. Hes the biggest troll ever. calling Bernie crazy and calling Biden "sleepy Joe" is classic trolling moves. I'm surprised he just doesn't call Bernie a commie. that would be legit true news. The very fact that trump does not take shit and is a hot head is the reason he got elected. If he acted presidential he would not get elected.
The guy has been trolling since day one. the dems and the media still are salty he won. Its like a noob loading cheats and still loosing.


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> At least in Germany its equivalent ("lying press") had already been used very frequently during the Ukraine crisis.


By whom?

We have had an entire thread about that already.

I still maintain the following.

- Is media all about 'dissecting news and getting to the truth (subjective concept)?' - no its not. First truth is subjective. Second media isnt a single thing (yellow press rag vs more quality orientated). Third, if they get stuff wrong, they are bound to bring corrections (- if someone puts in a complain with the media regulation authority in a specific country). Fourth, access always comes at at cost ('media management' conists of picking the most dumb and most friendly journalists to give interviews to). Fifth there is something like a political orientation. Sixth there are ownership structures. Seventh there are time and money pressures that have only increased in recent years. Eighth their social role is compromised, by media simply mattering less. Nineth the bigger ones are part of the societal status quo, not insane fringe outlets. Go figure. Tenth - 90% of the money in the public communications sector is spent on media management (PR) and message control (PR).

Now if -

- There is no truth without a corresponding viewpoint
- People dont care about corrections at all
- People dont even know that there are different types of media out there
- People increasingly don't know where a news article comes from - because they dont click trough from facebook
- People then also dont make sure to read different media outlets on a  single issue - because most of them today cant differentiate between Alex Jones, and the Washington Post, if we are realistic.
- People dont pay for news anymore

What are you complaining about?

That the 'as a journalist, I will write whats true' ethos doesnt solve all problems? How old are you?

'Lying press during the ukraine crisis'? What was there that could be misunderstood? It was not as easy as 'Putin bad, whatever billionaire President the country had that was pro EU good' - but not very far removed from it. In the end association decrees already signed din't matter much, because Russia intervened militarily - in a way that was not entirely covered by international law, but also wasn't a direct declaration of war. In the end russia got their 'buffer state' back (or at least the part that is mainly economically sustainable). Then there was a civil war (with multiple not so civil actors), then there were economic sanctions.

Where the heck would you see media misreporting on a bigger scale here?
--

The main thing that happened was the following.

- The public was entirely unprepared for a media age where "tha news" wasnt only what the TV newsanchor of their choice told them for 10 minutes every day - of which they always forgot 90% two minutes after (there are studies, you know).

- Then extreme wings of certain parties, and eastern script kiddies created aggitation click bait propaganda, that told people the entire opposite of what they were used to hearing, and that they should all be very worried about. Which people shared very eagerly - without looking at the source. Because by then they had all already adopted facebook as their 'news source'. But facebook always claimed we are only the hosting company, not a content joint, don't talk to us - ever.

And because those more agitating news stories banked on fear, hatred, scandals, ... they spread like wildfire - and facebook made more ad moneys.

- Then actual crisis moments (at least in europe) took place (migration crisis), where media reaction was delayed. (Again, if you are in a larger media institution, even if the west, you are mostly sympathetic to reporting about your governments actions - on the institional level. What you do with politcal personalities is different. (Puppet theatre of 'who said what' to break down some concepts more simply for the masses)). F.e. - look at the last two wars the US engaged in, at the time of their announcement - most media outlets had nothing but praise for them - even though that didnt reflect the expert opinion at the time.

And its hard to see that relationship ever being entirely different. Because if what politics does is news. And politics decides which reporters to give exclusive stuff to - the more amicable ones to at least certain government positions will always end up with hotter and bigger news items.

But then thats not 'corruption' thats soft power (people visiting the same coffee shops).

How thats supposed to pan out is, that 'the most pampered' news outlet has a rival, and they don't see this favourably, and they write stuff more critically - and then get more readers, and then everybody wins.

The rival of the most pampered news paper in todays ecosystem simply closed down. None of you noticed.

What happened instead is - that everyone stayed on facebook, didn't learn the name and political orientation of the news outlets, was swamped by 90% of communications spending going into PR - which now for the first time ever could reach you directly, with no filter (facebook dint care), and then also got fed with 'fake media' and 'lying press' tropes, which came from political parties on the fringes, which had no pull in conventional media - because they were small, or new. But they could bootstrap their own version of infowars.

At the same time there is state propaganda from foreign political actors.

At the same time there is conventional media realizing, that people don't buy their products anymore to get entertainded (and if they read through facebook - 70% less revenue, even if your clickbaity story hit).

At the same time, everyone is very enthused, about all the 'free stuff' they are getting.

And people are falling out of bed, realizing, that what their news anchor had given them for 10 minutes all day, before they went to sleep wasn't 'all the news'.

At the same time, conventional media becomes more 'dependant' on non public revenue streams - so the 'speak truth to power' ethos gets smaller as 'just scraping by' becomes more of a motto, and your own importance, as a societal player lessens more and more - while facebook uses all its influence to appease advertisers, who dont like conflict.

Oh blimey...

Lets just go with - ALL of it, was the publics fault. And you are closer to the (still subjective) truth than you are - when  you spread the 'fake news is lying to us' meme.

Really - thats the gist of it.

Now, if you want to read 'fringe' media outlets, please do. Gaining slightly opposing viewpoints (if you are not ending up with water purifier salesmen, like Alex Jones) is beneficial to you understanding the wold out there. Just know what you are reading. That other people also have agendas. And that influencers with very strange viewpoints, also get very many followers these days.

The two ways you have to get to 'truth' in journalism - are something like this

- make them at least partly big (more journalists in an editorial office helps) - and still independent, (and pay at least for part of their work). Also, maybe allow more than one such entity, that isn't already owned by a billionaire who might or might have not removed editorial independence.

if you as a public fail at that, then don't complain about fake news.

Because its still more likely that the fringe outlet from belarus feeds you more BS, that your local, or even bigger national outlet.

At least the news, most people care about - which first and foremost tells them how great their society is going. Most of the time.

Thats also a problem - most people dont want to hear anything but that, and be informed about a crisis, at which point they can resort to blaming someone they dont like.


That the media ecosystem kind of broke, is your fault, and yours alone.

(Bigger outlets in germany had to diversify so much, that even Springer (publisher) for a time (and I think still does) made more money with their second hand car sales (and similar) platform ventures, than with journalism.)


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2020)

Btw. I'm mainly talking about print/online journalism. Which is the basis for more 'easily digestable' forms of news, later down the road (Your fox and friends..  ).

Oh, I and I just realized, that when you were talking about 'fake news in ukraine' you might still be talking about the Trump sold out US interests for personal gains affair? In which case - no, that really happened (down to the note left by one of Gullianis henchmen in an austrian hotel). Its just that the process that developed around it later, was inherently political.

If you are just interested in which political voice to pick for your 10 min of polit news fix for the water cooler talk - pick any. They will never be always correct. They will never have other professionals to reflect their opinions on if they are just smaller bloggers or podcasters - but so does every one elses commentary pundit.

Just get accustom to the notion, that everyones political opinion around the water cooler will be more extreme, and diverse. Public removed journalisms gatekeeper function (by going for social media as a news 'source'), now learn to live with it.


----------



## yuyuyup (Feb 17, 2020)

I'd say he abused the phrase more than popularizing it, but I'm just a dumbdumb libturd SJEW, duh me dumby, me so triggered, me trigger you long time.


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2020)

Then which part of the population ever used the phrase in a non abusive way? (No I'm not getting SJW on you..  )

From my world view It always was used to demean the other side and put yourselves on a podest. The phrase never was followed up with 'here is what I mean specifically, and how you could tackle that problem'. It just was an implied "FIX IT" with none of the ones shouting ever acknowledging what broke.

Also elitism, schmitism... I'm - not saying that dumb people did something especially bad here by maybe permanently ruining journalism. 

Its just that payed journalism now becomes more elite focused, because you all stopped paying for it - and advertisers now dont have to deal with any sort of people that tell them 'no you cant do that', they simply can address the public directly. Segment its intrests, target it, tack it... (I.e. not so much caring about 'truth' either.)

When I noted at somewhat of an elite focused event, of the left, that - this now also becomes the default in political advertising, and that this should be curbed by regulation - everybody basically laughed and went to the next event that taught them how to graft their UBER style 70cent a delivery, but very polite workforce, they would very much like to write their app based work contracts for.

And when I talked to journalists at the event, they told me - first there is no patent solution for the journalism problem (meaning - everyone scram differently), and then in personal talks "isnt facebook great, because we could target all the people at this elite event with one advertisement to sell subscriptions to".

So thats whats happening. There are fewer news outlets targeting a mass audience, that still do 'real journalism'. It becomes more of a niche product. That targets people who have money.

But in exchange for that you get everything that facebook gives you for free.

And your 70cents food delivery driver fleets on e-scooters.

And your Bullshit jobs from Microsoft or whatever other company agreed to fake stakeholder capitalism, for as long as this carries societies along.

25% of jobs in the future (after digitization and AI) are in the 'caring for others for money' field all low income. But apparently this is what the working class of the future will look like.. 

So when I'm dismissive of developments that I deem society entirely responsible for, it is not because I'm playing elitist - but because I have the utmost dislike of the elitist concepts that 'seem to work, and will be further implemented' you can imagine. 

Think of me at the guy that loves to criticize and gets left at the wayside. While everyone else just talks less about news, eats their 70 cents delivery meal, buys what an algo advertises to him/her, and fake cares professionally in a corporate CSR job, while the per capita GDP halfs in the west in the next 80 years. And investors simply dont care - because they will be invested elsewhere. 

If you already stumble at 'tha fake news media is making me not think correctly' - thats the future you can look forward to.  Promised.

Hey 70 cents meal deliveries every day and new youtube influencer video signal bell on your phone. All while sporadically hating on journalism with your friends - why not.  Then literally selling your social conscience away as your next job. Sounds like a great life also.

(Job concepts of the future basically derived from 'stakeholder capitalism' concept, and explained here:
 )

In my parts of the world 'rebelling against society' now becomes doing 'activism' for the one thing both your insurance company, your church, your friendly multinational, and your climate (not solvable in any country individually) NGO care about, as a young adult.

That fixes you up perfectly for becoming an influencer later on, and leaves you at no risk of actually changing society - because the problem you are protesting against is either a mindset on part of the middle classes (development), or so huge, that your organization will never be able to even promote a solution that doesnt also require all other countries and corporations in the world to agree on some level.

No more fake news for the masses, is actually not a concept I think much about these days. You cant do that with algos, so you will never get it cheap, so the masses arent interested, when they got 'free' instead.

Most of them read the news for gossip stories anyhow. (Spoken in a non elitist fashion. Facebook/Insta replaced what they actually wanted perfectly.)

edit: On the implications of a science of persuasion meeting facebook, meeting AI:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNAFI3Lh97Y (Only a short part at the end of the talk, but the talk itself is interesting as well.)


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Feb 18, 2020)

I was referring to the German media which depicted Ukraine and the EU merely as victims of Russian aggression. To the point that SS helmets wearing Svoboda members were called freedom fighters. Also Yatsenyuk had called Russians subhumans on an official Ukrainian website (which the media ignored), was invited to Berlin and spoke of a "Russian invasion" of Ukraine and Germany during WW2 without being being challenged by the interviewer.


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I was referring to the German media which depicted Ukraine and the EU merely as victims of Russian aggression.


Got it.

If you looked at discussion rounds at Anne Will at the time, or listened to Deutschlandfunk background (Hintergrund) you got a slightly more differentiated picture.

Members of the corresponding dialogue platforms (https://www.deutsch-russisches-forum.de/ueber-uns/petersburger-dialog) were in the media talking about NATO expansion.  But yes, media represented mostly the german gouvernments position, when describing a conflict between the EU (Nato) and Russia. Which is understandable.

And yes, in daily discussions that then filtered through as 'Putin bad' and people who could understand the oder sides position being 'Putinversteher' (evangelist for the other side). The first part isnt wrong per se - its just not the entire story, the second part is just social shunning - that wouldnt be what you find in reporting - but rather in commentary.

Media in that case didn't 'lie' to you, they represented 'a position'. Namely that of the german govenment. You were free, to find more than that. (Freedom of the press, doesnt mean impartiality in all matters never has, never will. (Freedom of the press basically means, no direct top down interference. Soft power and informal channels being active still applies. (The 'they are visiting the same cafes' concept.)))

And its hard for them not to be. Because a closer relationship to power structures, will grant better and more exclusive stories - you dont easily get around that. It also is true for the other side (which in this case are formats close to what is basically a dictatorship with a more allincomposing media control, so bad example - but in principle this always will be a problem - and one of the sort, which you cant fix with an 'ethos' (higher moral concept)). Only with 'you can also read the other sides position in your media ecosystem - somewhere', no one said - on page one. And no one said in the 10 minutes of news coverage you get from your TV news anchor every evening.

Also I did't hear many people shouting 'the press is lying' during that time. Most people were shouting 'Putin bad' if anything. (Meaning mostly, that not even the people that coined that term (Lügenpresse) in germany could convince their 'followers' to take more of russias side in that conflict.  (who where partly financed by russian interests at the time)) 
(US cried foul.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a7b652-5d52-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html )

Imho.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Feb 18, 2020)

I simply want to point out that there is growing resentment against "the elite" in bother America and Europe. Bernie Sanders supporters will feel cheated once more in the coming months. It seems as if the establishment would rather risk a second Trump term than to let Sanders be President.
While it is true that you can choose your own media, some countries (like Germany) do not only have state and private media but also public TV and radio stations. The problem is there is no difference between state and public media and the corresponding fees are enforced like in a dictatorship.


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

There are always multiple elites (at least think business, political, ...), and they are diverse within themselves. A Paul Krugman f.e. loves Sanders, so does a Jeffrey D. Sachs.

(If everyone in the west gets on the same governing standard... (Thats also a concept verging on a conspiracy theory, where the right wingers freak))

Its just that structurally, when most of them think eh - microtargeting populations is not an issue for democracy or political discourse (it is, when it is enough to convince people just not to go to vote - because thats easier than to convince them to go to the gym for a month, it is, when you seed mostly emotional messages, that are micro tailored to the people receiving them (Your candidate says 30 different things! You never will believe the other ones hes saying - because you will never hear them.) thereby destroying open discourse (It is at the point where people talk about 'arming up' in context of AI mass manipulation - so they can 'fight back' the mass manipulation on the other side.)) - or I KNOW SOMETHING, lets bootstrap some climate protests in europe, so we can sidetrack from the european union being in remission, and people wanting actual political projects instead of - well... nothing, that I have a problem with that course.

There is a narrative within parts of the elite, that goes like - 'people today are happy' it doesnt matter that wages didn't increase in 15+ years, because people got cheaper goods and were happy with that. (Don't look at GDP.) They also were happy with no investments in R&D or education since about a year ago. And they were all so happy not looking at the financial crisis, or wealth distribution in globalization. They just got bored, and then came up with all kinds of demands, so we gave them something to play with - that they (my interpretation) can never tackle at the national or the NGO level. Climate change. A class A issue, that benefits not at all from being discussed in a pubic form, because what peoples perceptions of the world in 200 years is - and how much each individual is into virtue signaling - doesnt help them in their livetimes, or their children, or the issue. And can not be decided nationally - so whatever they vote plays no part in any process, directly, whatsoever.

Because Europe would have adhered to the UN target goals pretty much no matter what, and a Jeffry Sachs is on record saying - if you do it (get to 100% CO2 neutral economies) before 2050 you have massive economic fallout, so you cant. 2050 pretty much is the earliest date possible, and adheres to the 1.5°C goal.

So what then is the popular movement for?

With climate change activism you then get parareligious motives, that will hurt the middle classes most, that will support multinational interest most, that will support industrial interest (if you look at - the activism is there to hike up private investment in the green energy sector (that the industry demands, because the frameworks already in place tell them, get green, or pay fees), but not so much from informed investors - what in china ICOs are banned, in Europe they are fostered? If its for the climate?). And then also look at that those movements (or at least wings of them) are already integrated in all political and economic forums - but are sold to the youth as 'rebellion'?

Then you look at the canonical leadership figures of that movement that all - in one voice speak out against becoming a political force - and you curse all day against freaking elites manipulating society - like I do.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

If you want the same cultural lessons of the west in a stylized two hour movie adaptation, you can watch

Mr. Jones (2019)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6828390/

 (Chance find. Wanted to watch something melancholic..  )


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Sensationalized news irritates me to no end. It's the worst thing to have happened to us socially. When every story is a drama and every office has their political bent, it's no wonder we're becoming so polarized.
> 
> The worst part of all is that straight news just doesn't sell.


The real problem is that society has replaced God with Money. But this happened a very long time ago.


----------

