zlacker

[return to "In Praise of Print: Reading Is Essential in an Era of Epistemological Collapse"]
1. bux93+d3[view] [source] 2024-11-28 10:07:04
>>bertma+(OP)
It's not what you know, but who you know. Any type of mass-media is fodder for the have-nots, while the haves get their information from trustworthy sources through their in-group. The more addictive facebook, tiktok and twitter are, the bigger the premium is of being part of the right group. Whether the memes you consume are in print is entirely incidental.
◧◩
2. mandma+T5[view] [source] 2024-11-28 10:39:13
>>bux93+d3
> the haves get their information from trustworthy sources through their in-group

Then why are their actions more harmful than any other class? I see them:

* Starting proxy wars, fueling climate doubt, lobbying/destroying governments to allow every kind of degradation of every commons.

* Paying people 6 or 7 figures to confuse and divide the people earning 5 or 6 figures.

* Apparently utterly ignorant of their legacy, which will be one of murderous self-interest and absurd delusion.

Do all their "trustworthy sources" feed their biases and class interests, their self-delusions, their greed? It's astounding how people can have all the facts and teachers in the world, while dodging genuine understanding of everything most important.

◧◩◪
3. pjc50+19[view] [source] 2024-11-28 11:16:43
>>mandma+T5
There's two things going on here:

- things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable, because people are paying them to be reliable and are making decisions based on the news; but those are for the "financial middle class" who are still doing something that could be called a "job"

- people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases, and are at risk of spiralling off into a Fox News hole of untruths, because they're too rich to be adversely affected by poor decisions or things that turn out not to be true.

◧◩◪◨
4. mandma+id[view] [source] 2024-11-28 12:12:17
>>pjc50+19
> things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable

"Reliable" doing some heavy lifting here.

Sports figures and statistics are reliable. Stock tickers are reliable. Neither will ever lie to you, but neither are they likely to teach you anything of real value.

FT and Bloomberg are extremely biased toward class interest; in what they choose to cover, in how they cover it, etc.

Did they ever speak out against torture, or illegal war? How much? Did they ever go into the long term advantages of Jill Stein's economic plans; or Bernie's? How much?

The fact that we spent over $8 trillion in a murderous money laundering scheme should have been front page news every day for years. The costs of our incredible and historic inequality are rarely discussed, and if they are, it's in the most limp manner imaginable. The opportunity cost of all this fuckery, from a rational economic perspective, is mind blowing.

The Overton Window is now looking onto bipartisan genocide, after decades of bipartisan illegal war and an extreme agenda of Islamophobia.

> people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases

People like Musk buy news sources to spread their biases. Same for Murdoch, Turner, Bezos, etc.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. seabas+Mu[view] [source] 2024-11-28 15:05:14
>>mandma+id
I think the reason why the FT, among others, don't spend much space on human rights issues is because they are inherently transactional publications in nature. You have to pay to subscribe, and those who do expect something in return - I suspect that this is usually a sense of being 'in the know' on business matters. Obviously knowledge of Jill Stein's manifesto is not going to make its readers any money in the foreseeable future.

I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe. Compare this to the tabloids, which don't charge for online access and make money by peddling particular business or political interests - mostly shady business, I think most would agree. I'd therefore trust FT on the facts, albeit probably not for wide coverage.

[go to top]