News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by chiefalchemist on Friday October 05, 2018 @01:48PM (#18150145)
> "Was there a time when politics wasn't full of poison?"

Short answer: Nope.

A couple years ago I read "Freedom for the Thoughts That We Hate." Aside from the history of the 1st Amendment, my #1 takeaway was: "politics has always been ugly and dirty."

That said, I think what's difference now is more and more people are less and less aware of history, as well as the fact that the MSM has finally figured out how to make money in the internet age (i.e., a "news" cycle based on controversy).

Editorial: Say what you want about Trump (I'm not a fan either) but even at his worst he's no where near as dangerous as Dick Cheney. To believe otherwise is only a sign of not understanding Cheney's nastiness.

Even if you compare DJT to BHO, BHO was no saint either (e.g., Wall Street was "pardoned" but Snowden was a Most Wanted). However, the MSM's narrative of BHO was one that over-glorified the upside and completely ignored the darkside. Unfortunately, playing to that manufactured extreme contrast today is good for profits in the DJT era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_W...

Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by AnimalMuppet on Friday October 05, 2018 @03:20PM (#18150962)
> I think what's difference now is more and more people are less and less aware of history...

More and more people that other people are listening to are less and less aware of history. The internet has given a platform to many more voices. Some of those new voices have worthwhile things to say. And others are coming from places that are rather disconnected from reality. Before, the only place those people got heard was at the corner bar. Now the whole world can hear them.

Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by chiefalchemist on Friday October 05, 2018 @03:45PM (#18151123)
I'm not going to disagree. But perhaps it's a chicken v egg situation? That is, people would be wiser about who / what they listened to __if__ they were more aware of context. What is at play is confirmation bias gone wild. Start with a false / flawed idea and there are plenty of ways to reinforce that.
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by zapita on Friday October 05, 2018 @02:17PM (#18150400)
What is “the MSM”?
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by Staxitix on Friday October 05, 2018 @02:21PM (#18150434)
Main Stream Media is the term. I guess your top channels such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, etc...
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by dkubb on Friday October 05, 2018 @02:22PM (#18150454)
I think he means Mainstream Media. It's the first time I've seen that abbreviation too.
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by chiefalchemist on Friday October 05, 2018 @03:40PM (#18151092)
Sorry. I thought it was the common abbreviation. Maybe MsM then>?
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by zapita on Friday October 05, 2018 @03:58PM (#18151206)
I see. How do you define “mainstream media”? Outlets with a very large audience? In the sense that large media outlets covered Barack Obama one way, and small media outlets another?
Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by chiefalchemist on Saturday October 06, 2018 @07:18AM (#18154554)
Outlets where the emphasis is on the talking head and the entertainment value, while journalism takes a back seat.

Outlets that parrot press releases and the narrative dictated to them via back channels.

Outlets where asking questions, analysis and looking beyond the common narrative is frowned upon.

Outlets that shamelessly relabel editorial / op-ed as news and/or journalism.

Outlets that self-anoint themselves as "trusted."

Outlets that say they are "world news" or "international news" and then focus 95% of their coverage on the USA.

Outlets that use non-vetted tweets as content / sources.

Outlets that refuse to police other outlets because they are afraid of "retaliation" from other outlets.

Outlets that employ the BuzzFeed mindset and tactics as a means to "journalism excellence."

Re:How Twitter poisoned politics by zapita on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @05:43PM (#18180053)
Are you sure you understand what the word “mainstream” means? A recent dictionary defines mainstream as “representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group”. You don’t seem to use that meaning of the word at all.

Your definition seems closer to “low-quality” or “biased”. As in “The low-quality, biased media only talks about the good sides of Barack Obama”. Is that what you meant?