Well, fuck it - I like Internet shaming people after all

[Zanza]

Nothing, they are still around...?
You can find a multitude of newspapers, TV shows, blogs, books etc. on just about every political issue.

[Valmy]

Click-bait (its equivalents anyway) crap driving outrage is not new. Being able to instantly get a virtual mob to terrorize the object of said outrage is new...well maybe a throwback to the villages of old

What we have here is the evolution of that stuff. I never liked tabloids and that culture so why would I like its evolved and mutated descendants?

[grumbler]

Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.

Maybe in Germany, but in the US there were only a handful of tabloids, and their combined circulation was absolutely dwarfed by the circulation of quality newspapers before, say, the turn of the 21st century.

[crazy canuck]

Nothing, they are still around...?
You can find a multitude of newspapers, TV shows, blogs, books etc. on just about every political issue.

Here is an article that touches on what I am talking about.  Yes, we still have newspapers but they are a shadow of what they once were.  Yes we have tv news shows but they lack meaningful content or analysis.  Blogs are part of the problem.  Anyone can write whatever they want about anything without the guidance of editors or editorial boards.  Good for freedom of expression but bad for meaningful, well researched and well edited content.

But that isn't the worst part.  Even if one were to have the very best of blogs which meets the highest journalistic standards - how does one compete to attract a readership.  The experience of the newspapers tells us, not very well.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/14/national-newspapers-sales-decade

[The Brain]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

[Valmy]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

If the printing press had been limited to 140 characters things would have been very different.

[crazy canuck]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

Actually no.  Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print.  Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.

[The Brain]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

Actually no.  Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print.  Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.

I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.

[crazy canuck]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

Actually no.  Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print.  Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.

I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.

I am not sure why you would think that, but ok.

[The Brain]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

Actually no.  Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print.  Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.

I understand that in your ideal world every written word would be checked and approved before publication by venerable Jorge from The Name of the Rose.

I am not sure why you would think that, but ok.

Lucky guess.

[Syt]

And with the printing press anyone could print anything. And with the chisel anyone could carve anything. Verily, the sky is falling.

Actually no.  Printing presses made things easier to print and so the amount and number of books and other publications increased but there was and continues to be a cost associated with communicating through hard copies of the print.  Anyone can now publish anything on a blog for the cost of an internet connection and their time.

Didn't stop a whole crapload of bullshit pamphlets being published in the 17th and 18th century.







Not any better or worse than what I see on my sisters' Facebook newsfeed, really.

[Zanza]

Tabloids existed way before Twitter and always had much higher distribution than quality newspapers. I find the idea that intellectual discourse has been harmed by new social media questionable.

Maybe in Germany, but in the US there were only a handful of tabloids, and their combined circulation was absolutely dwarfed by the circulation of quality newspapers before, say, the turn of the 21st century.

Okay, wrong generalisation by me then. Where did Americans get their gossip and trivial "news" back in the day?

[derspiess]

Does that last devil have tits?

[Zanza]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/14/national-newspapers-sales-decade

Hmm, the article is very vague when it comes to explanations. Not sure how it supports your point which I understood as social media having a bad influence on public discourse.

[Valmy]

Okay, wrong generalisation by me then. Where did Americans get their gossip and trivial "news" back in the day?

Television.