Media consolidation. A massive percentage of the media in democracies has been bought up by organizations who benefit from the suppression of free speech. No leader who wants to keep getting elected dares go against the wishes of these oligarchs.
I was asking a different question; my fault for not being clear: My question was about the reactionary movement - what is it, how is it defined, what is its name (I use the term 'reactionary', but there is no name for it).
I can’t remember the last time I went to a news site or watched TV. Even when I do, they report on things that happen on Twitter (this was true pre-Musk, not sure now).
I get my entire dose of other-people’s-opinions on Twitter and Youtube, from people I specifically picked out myself - the opposite of consolidation.
For important things like the weather, financial news, and political votes, you’re better off getting the info straight from the source, which is usually available unbiased, free, 24/7, instantly, online.
People older than you who don’t have anything to do other than go vote on Election Day.
According to this [0] peak voting age is 45+. The oldest millennials are around 40 now, so in a decade or two, you can expect a steep decline in big media - these companies are still in business at all.
[0] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu...
Disinformation and misinformation influence have had major increases. Is that coincidence?
- The term 'media' is often applied with a broader scope than "traditional news media".
- There are ads and suggestions on Twitter and Youtube. Do you specifically pick out those?
- The people that you talk to or follow online get their information from somewhere.
- You may be an exception. I'd wager you're less immune to mass media / the propaganda model than you think, but in any case the majority is (largely) responsible for election outcomes.
It used to be that a dozen or so talking heads told entire countries what was what. Today, the information landscape has exploded and splintered into millions of sources.
For the first time, it's practical for every individual human to go directly to primary sources for most of the important things. And while most don't, many do, and out the many who do, some have their own platforms.
Information dissemination is now more many-to-many than one-to-many. And while there is more bullshit than ever out there, there's also much more truth, and more angles of it being examined, and much less ability for small interests to control the whole. And that's fantastic.
> you're better off getting the info straight from the source
Unless you have incredible time, expertise, and access, I think that's a serious error. You can't do the research of a professional journalist - not only looking at the source, but calling (or emailing/texting) the principles and speaking to them, speaking directly to experts (without expertise you are easily misled by the primary source), researching all their claims.
There's a reason Wikipedia only allows secondary, not primary sources as citations. Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you.
> Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you.
The primary goal of most major news outlets isn't to inform either, it's to present propaganda. See, e.g., the Trusted News Initiative.
Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
I agree!
> they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost
Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. The amount of direct, personal, on-the-ground research is really impressive.
> Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
That's been complained about for a long time - it's nothing new and not 'destroying the profession'. But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge.
And yet journalism does amazing things.
> Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming.
If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
I am speaking statistically. Trust in the media is at an all-time low: https://deadline.com/2021/10/news-media-trust-gallup-1234852.... I'm happy that you don't see that in your personal consumption, but I would urge you to take your own advice.
> But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge.
You do investigation. You hire private investigators. You find courageous individuals who will blow the whistle and have the courage to do so publically. You certainly do not continue to use "anonymous sources" when they have shows themselves completely worthless, while lying to your audience that you have vetted the information.
> If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
Not at all. But your earlier comment implies that there could not be anything to GPs stance than ignorance. This showed your own ignorance as to the state of affairs re: trust in journalism, along with other institutions. Blaming rightly-earned distrust on ignorance... See my comment above.
Agreed! And it happens daily in at least the serious news media. Though I'm not sure where private investigators fit - the journalists are already professional investigators.
> "anonymous sources" ... have shows themselves completely worthless
Speaking of worthless, these claims seem pretty empty of value. Certainly many exceptionally valuable, true things have come from anonymous sources. Certainly there aren't always alternatives to them.