On the occasion of its 15th anniversary, Politico published the opinions of various experts on the question, “Is Media Doomed?”
As far as I could tell, none of them came up with a definitive answer but perhaps that’s because they were asked the wrong question. For one thing, which forms of media are we talking about anyway?
It’s a fair assumption that human societies will always have some sort of media because we almost certainly have always had them. The original forms probably involved cave drawings and fireside gossip sessions.
The ways news travels in a pre-literate society — by word of mouth — persists even in the most highly techno-societies. Think about it — when you hear some news from a friend it can have more impact than from an official news source, right?
And in today’s environment, “media” encompasses a far broader swath of sources than the ones (including Politico) that I aggregate daily, because these are primarily traditional journalism outlets that normally adhere to the professional standards people like me believe in.
Information circulating via Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat and other social media reaches at least as many people as these traditional outlets. Disinformation spread by Fox, QAnon, Trump and other extremist sources carve out their own sizable audience as well.
Governments, the academy, scientific groups, industry groups, public opinion pollsters, specialty publications, newsletters and individual authors affect the flow of stories, some reaching far more people than any traditional media could dream of.
Inside this cacophony, what exactly is “the media”?
The most common query I get from readers and friends is whether they can trust this or that source of information any longer. Skepticism even with the likes of the New York Times seems to be at an all-time high, and not just on the right.
Maybe it is our ability to trust that we need to be most worried about. With so many competing points of view, optimists profess that the truth will win out. But whose truth exactly are we talking about?
Whether a story is strictly true or not is of major interest to us journalists, but I’m not so sure that is the case for the general public. A good story — as long as it seems plausible — may be more satisfying to many than one that can strictly be proven to be fully accurate. Speculative pieces often prove to be exceptionally popular.
Maybe the question Politico should have posed is not so much whether media is doomed but a much larger issue.
Is truth doomed?
(I first published this two years ago in January 2022. It feels even more relevant now.)
HEADLINES:
For the Anti-Trump Wing of the G.O.P., It All Comes Down to Tuesday (NYT)
Haley questions Trump’s mental fitness after he confuses her with Nancy Pelosi (CNN)
This week, Republican fantasies about Trump and the Democrats came crashing down (Independent)
Trump steps up attacks on Haley (Reuters)
Science is revealing why American politics are so intensely polarized (WP)
Disinformation poses an unprecedented threat in 2024 — and the U.S. is less ready than ever (NBC)
Biden signs short-term funding extension, averting government shutdown (CNN)
Billionaires Wanted to Save the News Industry. They’re Losing a Fortune. (NYT)
Growing number of Senate Democrats question Biden’s Israel strategy (WP)
Netanyahu inflames tensions with Democrats over Palestinian statehood (Axios)
Netanyahu told Biden in private phone call he was not foreclosing the possibility of a Palestinian state in any form (CNN)
The hands behind the Houthi attacks (Reuters)
China's population declines for second straight year (CNN)
Greed Killed Sports Illustrated (New York)
Don't worry — the machines won't be as smart as humans for a long time, because they've still got a lot to learn (Business Insider)
AI bots are everywhere now. These telltale words give them away. (WP)
Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Almost 40% of Jobs, IMF Says (Bloomberg)
Mom Wants To Know If You’ll Be Free If She Visits 14 Months From Now (The Onion)
No comments:
Post a Comment