Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not often that Gralin and I are in lockstep. But I wholeheartedly agree with every single word of this. If anything, the rise of social media has allowed more points of view to be easily accessible to the public. Whether this ends up being for the greater good remains to be seen, but there is a much more diverse set of views out there for consumption if you look go looking for it.

Old media has pressured to the government to make changes that try to protect their market share, no more, no less.
Media "balance" has played a massive part in the idea that all view points are equally valid too.

If 7:30 is doing a segment on Peter Duttons nuclear plan they'll ring around until they find someone to agree with it as well as someone to oppose it.

If it takes them 5 minutes to find 10 experts who say its terrible with data to back it up and 3 days to find an "expert" who says it's good with no data to back it up they'll present both positions as equally valid and act like either could be true and not let the data be presented

That feeds into the mess we have on social media
 
Media "balance" has played a massive part in the idea that all view points are equally valid too.

If 7:30 is doing a segment on Peter Duttons nuclear plan they'll ring around until they find someone to agree with it as well as someone to oppose it.

If it takes them 5 minutes to find 10 experts who say its terrible with data to back it up and 3 days to find an "expert" who says it's good with no data to back it up they'll present both positions as equally valid and act like either could be true and not let the data be presented

That feeds into the mess we have on social media
I'm ok with the media presenting both sides of an argument, regardless of how crazy the positions may seem. It's not the media's place to be passing judgement on the validity of someone's position (it's a bit different if they are conducting an interview, rather than "reporting" the news).
 
I'm ok with the media presenting both sides of an argument, regardless of how crazy the positions may seem. It's not the media's place to be passing judgement on the validity of someone's position (it's a bit different if they are conducting an interview, rather than "reporting" the news).

'Reporting both sides' versus giving equal representation is the issue. Sometimes both sides simply shouldn't be reported as at all factual, Holocaust Denial being a common example.

Reporting both sides is often dangerous, as it suggests that 'both sides' even exist. Sometimes things are simply demonstrably true, and the other side, isn't.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Back in the dim dark ages, media steams were firmly established.

You bought The Sun. The Herald, The Australian, The Age, The Truth and The Sporting Globe and you knew what you were getting as each occupied specific and distinct politcal, religious and social niches.

Same with radio and TV

There were suburban and Regional papers too, which also refected their owners, publishers or Editors world view.

Social Media is not very different to the established media of 40 or more years ago, the "Publishers" are after advertising revenue measured by clicks rather than physical papers sold

The only difference is that the readership no longer have the certainty of the "voice" of the publisher without doing a search through Wikipedia or other sources to gain a reasonable expectation of the particular bent of what you're reading.

Social media is instant reading gratification versus the long read where you are expected to think about the content and weigh it up in your mind

Media comprehension is more important now than ever, gone are the days where somebody could say I read an article in The Truth and the listener could pass their own judgement of the import of what they were saying and whether it should be listened to.

Nowdays somebody says I read on Twitter or Facebook or watched on You tube and nobody knows the baggage or back story contained
 
No political party ever captures any media org. It's the corporates who capture the media orgs and therefore the Government.

Murdoch tells Dutton what to do. Dutton doesn't tell Murdoch nothing.

Sometimes the ALP thinks it's a two-way street, but, like Gillard, Albo will soon find out it isn't.

Andrews never trusted them for a second and it worked for him.

It’s more of a mutually beneficial situation. The media goes soft on certain things (mostly corruption) and the publishers typically get their garbage business models propped up, plus legislative favours.
 
Media "balance" has played a massive part in the idea that all view points are equally valid too.

If 7:30 is doing a segment on Peter Duttons nuclear plan they'll ring around until they find someone to agree with it as well as someone to oppose it.

If it takes them 5 minutes to find 10 experts who say its terrible with data to back it up and 3 days to find an "expert" who says it's good with no data to back it up they'll present both positions as equally valid and act like either could be true and not let the data be presented

That feeds into the mess we have on social media

Dutton on nuclear is a great example of media failing. The biggest favour the media does politicians on issues like this is legitimacy - they prop up the charade that there even is a plan.

They literally talk about “the nuclear plan” like it exists. Which is a lie in itself.

Even saying things like “they’re yet to release costings on the nuclear plan”. Media being used and manipulated by politicians.

They won’t dare utter the actual truth:

There is no nuclear plan.

It doesn’t exist.

It’s just all a performative wank. Call a press conference and print out a couple of pictures you got from google, and the media will regurgitate it.

Theres plenty of other examples. Morrison was huge on this bullshit. He’d waddle out in front of cameras during COVID, literally wave a piece of paper around and claim it was a “plan” for managing a nation during a once-in-a-century pandemic.
 
I don't have much love for legacy media and it can still be horrendously biased, but at least it is bound by a code when it comes to news an accuracy. Social media is a sewer of lies and opinion and if it becomes the primary source of news for most people, then we're ****ed.
A code that's about as punishing as a wet lettuce leaf.
 
Back in the dim dark ages, media steams were firmly established.

You bought The Sun. The Herald, The Australian, The Age, The Truth and The Sporting Globe and you knew what you were getting as each occupied specific and distinct politcal, religious and social niches.

Same with radio and TV

There were suburban and Regional papers too, which also refected their owners, publishers or Editors world view.

Social Media is not very different to the established media of 40 or more years ago, the "Publishers" are after advertising revenue measured by clicks rather than physical papers sold

The only difference is that the readership no longer have the certainty of the "voice" of the publisher without doing a search through Wikipedia or other sources to gain a reasonable expectation of the particular bent of what you're reading.

Social media is instant reading gratification versus the long read where you are expected to think about the content and weigh it up in your mind

Media comprehension is more important now than ever, gone are the days where somebody could say I read an article in The Truth and the listener could pass their own judgement of the import of what they were saying and whether it should be listened to.

Nowdays somebody says I read on Twitter or Facebook or watched on You tube and nobody knows the baggage or back story contained
While this is true to some extent (about the dim dark ages) it didn't seem so parochial one sided barracking like you see on Sky, 2BG, Herald Sun
Perhaps it was more subtle...

It's hard to believe in 2007 the Murdoch papers (some of them) actually supported the Rudd government in its editorial. That would be totally unfathomable now
 
While this is true to some extent (about the dim dark ages) it didn't seem so parochial one sided barracking like you see on Sky, 2BG, Herald Sun
Perhaps it was more subtle...

It's hard to believe in 2007 the Murdoch papers (some of them) actually supported the Rudd government in its editorial. That would be totally unfathomable now
Long after we're all dead I suspect the GFC's role in the formation of the world we see right now is going to occupy a fairly central part of study.
 
I don't have much love for legacy media and it can still be horrendously biased, but at least it is bound by a code when it comes to news an accuracy. Social media is a sewer of lies and opinion and if it becomes the primary source of news for most people, then we're ****ed.
I sometimes hear people saying highly doubtful things, and I ask where did they hear that, and the answer is almost always Tiktok. That platform is full of people talking absolute shit, but looking as if they know what they're talking about.

There is a certain irony to writing that on a social media platform. Nobody should take my posts as gospel!
 
Wow, you’re off your tree.

Doesn’t matter if you or I or anybody else likes it, hates it or is indifferent. Traditional media is down the shitter because the advertisers have left for social media. Because that’s where the eyeballs are now.

They’re media platforms for disseminating information and Labor or the LNP can’t control the content. With traditional media it’s much easier for them to influence it.

End of story.
That msm is bad isn't the issue.

It is your naive belief that alternative social media isn't both significantly objectively worse, and much easier for political parties to manipulate and control.

If your a partisan political hack looking to corrupt a political process and distort and manipulate legitimate political discourse, social media is manna from heaven.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
The Liberals say they have a nuclear plan - fact (they are saying that)

The Liberals have not released much detail on their nuclear plan (some judgement there, but I am happy for that to be categorised as fact)

The Liberals have not released much detail on their nuclear plan because there is no plan - opinion unless verified sources prove this is the case per long-standing journalistic standards (multiple internal sources confirming this to a journalist)

At the very least, getting our news from social media doesn't do us any better than what the traditional media was doing for us before social media existed. It's a breeding ground for misinformation, opinion dressed up as verified fact, and conspiracy theories that never would have been tolerated when newspapers were king.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maybe it'll spark him into taking some action, maybe even, dare I say it, Leading.
If he personally felt those numbers then he would in 5 minutes.
But when you're on PM wages it's just a squiggly line on a chart.

I suspect he will start acting way too late when he's facing the barrel of an election loss
 
'Reporting both sides' versus giving equal representation is the issue. Sometimes both sides simply shouldn't be reported as at all factual, Holocaust Denial being a common example.

Reporting both sides is often dangerous, as it suggests that 'both sides' even exist. Sometimes things are simply demonstrably true, and the other side, isn't.
Where do you draw the line though? Allowing/expecting the media to be moral arbiters of right and wrong is a very dangerous game.
 
I mean, a media advisor is getting sacked for that. There is no way the PM should have agreed to do that interview in front of that graphic.
Might actually do them a favour of sorts... Get them to stop talking up the amazing job the believe their doing on inflation (which is actually just manipulating the headline number via the energy rebate, while underlying CPI actually went up in October).
 
Where do you draw the line though? Allowing/expecting the media to be moral arbiters of right and wrong is a very dangerous game.
Agreed. Media's job is to outline the facts and make sure when giving opinion it's noted as opinion. I thought the ABC did that well in the nuclear debate. This is why sky news/fox news does well because they label it as 'news'. To a certain demographic news is gospel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top