Elon Musk
Out of context: Reply #2172
- Started
- Last post
- 2,424 Responses
- mg334
I've probably posted this before, but Musk's derision of legacy media is what I can't stand the most. I realize there are issues of valid concern with major media these days, whether it's cable news or newspapers / magazines, but I truly think it all boils down to Republicans anger over established media outlets actually getting things right most of the time, but it just happens to paint them in a bad light. Trump really got the ball rolling on this during his first campaign and presidency, but Musk has really taken it to the next level with his pro citizen journalism stance and how he enables it and empowers it on Twitter.
Even with its problems, "legacy media" will always, I think, operate with far more dignity, objectivity, fact-focus, due-diligence, and good intentions WHEN SIMPLY REPORTING NEWS. I emphasize that last part to acknowledge that reporting news is not, and has not, been the emphasis of cable news media in particular for years as we've seen them shift towards narrative construction and opinion / panel discussion based dissection of topics.
I was interested in and exposed to the news from a young age when I'd be at my grandparents house as a kid and they'd watch NBC Nightly News. At best, the only opinion / editorial time they'd have over the years was Tom Brokaw's "Fleecing of America" segment that skewed a bit outside the fact-focused norm. But I always liked that I could watch that, and even local news, and it be totally devoid of opinion. That was the 80s and 90s.
Elon's push for, and praise of, "citizen journalism" is aimed squarely at the portion of the population who has bought into Trump, and MAGA, and Elon's derision of mainstream news. Musk / X empowers absolute nobodies with zero journalistic background to shill whatever bias-affirming opinion they have as fact to those who don't trust legacy media anymore. It gives a platform to John Q Nobody in Kansas to totally make up, or to twist a thought into something purely conspiratorial or nonsensical just because they dream it up, and the rest of the crowd that's inclined to believe it will absolutely believe it. Nevermind that John Q Nobody isn't a journalist, has never learned how to properly research anything, has no credentials of any kind, didn't do any due-diligence on the topic, and is probably just regurgitating and amplifying someone else's dumb opinion. Then, X amplifies it, it bounces around their echo chamber, and the opinion(s) become fact by virtue of the frequency and volume of posts on it. It's still total BS, but it's all they're seeing, it's not being presented by major news media that they distrust, and it just goes on and on.
It's such a dangerous construct, and I don't know if we will ever recover from that. It really illustrates what our new "class battle" is, IMO, which is between one group who can think critically and rationally, discern fact from fiction, can seek information and retain new knowledge, and the other group who can't or won't do those things, and instead fall victim to everything that aligns with their bias and their feelz.
- For example: "when a right-wing page on X called Western Decline alleged that... [LI co-founder funded Tesla protests."mg33
- https://www.rawstory…mg33
- The last straw.palimpsest
- your description of JohnQNobody aligns pretty well with the quality of reportage coming from newsrooms these days. Last paragraph could describe either side.monNom
- The projection of “journalists” as unimpeachable purveyors of honesty is silly. They are as fallible as anyone. their job relies on having the ‘right’ opinion.monNom
- And the ‘right opinion’ is unlikely to misalign with the goals of the 5 or 6 giant corporations who control the vast majority of all media.monNom
- It’s forever been a trope to take what you read in the papers with a grain of salt. Still good advice. All that’s changed is a democratization of speach.monNom
- 'The projection of “journalists” as unimpeachable purveyors of honesty is silly.' <— it's not about the journalists, as such, it's about the institution ...Continuity
- ... the Fourth Estate. Without it — and the _professional_ journalists that constitute it — democracy no longer functions. Or even exists.Continuity
- @mg33: since the rise of the Fourth Estate, "narrative construction and opinion" has always been a part of it. It's nothing to speak of.Continuity
- It's nothing NEW to speak of, rather. And it can be traced as far back as the 18th century, with British papers of the day reporting and opinionating ...Continuity
- on the day-to-day business of the House of Commons. It's just that, as pointed out, now we have more outlets for stupid people to express opinions.Continuity
- @cont This. We talk about the Fourth Estate, but ignore that it is being railroaded by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Ad Infinitum Estate of Firehose Bullshit.garbage
- @continuity - the 'institution' is a group of businesses --unaccountable. The same 'institution' of media also exists in the most corrupt places on earth.monNom
- The Russians reading pravda thought what pravda told them to think, because there were no alternative narratives to be found.monNom
- I agree that the ideal of an independent media as guardian of democracy is a nice thought, but there is nothing that guarantees it is so.monNom
- in the absence of such a guarantee, the best alternative is that everyone has a voice, and a megaphone, and the people choose.monNom
- That's the true 4th estate and the true defender of democracy. It's not a newspaper. It's the ability of anyone to speak and be heard.monNom
- concerningKrassy