Oops I accidentally the whole civil society...

Doc Ruby

TheZohan wrote: »

So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how if you can go more than a minute without hearing it talk about Machiavellianism

Oo-er, when proper nouns are getting verbed, you know the kids gloves are off.

hullaballoo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oo-er, when proper nouns are getting verbed, you know the kids gloves are off.

http://e.images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/14577132.jpg

RichieC

Great read and bang on the money. As far as I'm concerned the dinosaur media is just a means for the monied elite to manufacture a mass opinion that suits their agenda.

It's no wonder they are so amenable to the recording industries demands for cracking down on copyright as it will give them the tools they need to eventually crack down on dissenting voices on-line.

Keep up the good work, Devore.

ScumLord

The bottom line is that the internet has changed everything. Our old ways of doing things and making money just don't really make sense in a digital age. Companies are desperately trying to justify the money they used to make even though it's easier for them in this digital age. There's nothing they can do top stop that other then going down the oppressive fascist way of restrictions and stopping the free transfer of information.

They're all doomed if they insist on trying to continue on as they have in the past and if they won't accept that they're idiots that deserve to fail.

RichieC

ScumLord wrote: »

The bottom line is that the internet has changed everything. Our old ways of doing things and making money just don't really make sense in a digital age. Companies are desperately trying to justify the money they used to make even though it's easier for them in this digital age. There's nothing they can do top stop that other then going down the oppressive fascist way of restrictions and stopping the free transfer of information.

They're all doomed if they insist on trying to continue on as they have in the past and if they won't accept that they're idiots that deserve to fail.

For governments and the corporations it's a case of better the divel you know. so the old media has an advantage in the halls of power.

ScumLord

RichieC wrote: »

For governments and the corporations it's a case of better the divel you know. so the old media has an advantage in the halls of power.

They're on a sinking ship convincing themselves it's not sinking. They're advantage is slipping and sooner or later it will be gone.

Temptamperu

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

ScumLord

Temptamperu wrote: »

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

Probably, people don't like realising they're on a sinking ship. It's a horrible feeling to think everything you trained for and worked towards is now defunct.

Dyr

Temptamperu wrote: »

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

They just got into politics, always a place for mouthpieces in that game :pac:

Fromthetrees

Newspapers are extremely popular in Ireland. According to the National Newspapers of Ireland and Joint National Readership Survey 91% of Irish adults regularly read newspapers [1]. The market penetration for daily newspapers runs at 190% and 350% for Sunday titles. For comparison, US newspaper market penetration is only 51%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Ireland#Newspapers

I think we need to find a balance between old and new media. I think both should compliment each other and eventually I think they will quite well, to the benefit of society as a whole. We are not even near this equilibrium yet but we will get there soon and having both in competition is a really healthy thing and I assume will create higher quality journalism and stories centered more around truth.

44leto

I notice a lot of topics are usually started by quotations or a link to a press article from the old media. If you want to give a post or a point some credence you will link it to an old media source and not a blog.

The old media still has an authority, not all, but we know which ones you can take seriously and which ones deserve our skepticism. Gathering news and quality analysis is an expensive business and one not really replaced by the new media yet.

I read the Sunday Times each week, I cannot link to their articles, on the internet it is subscription only, the way the other quality ones will have to go eventually. They deserve payment for the service they provide, we can't always expect it for free.

DeVore

When they deserve my money I will be over joyed to give it to them. Currently they dont and its going the wrong way. There was a time I would have happily paid for the IT online, but after recent events I've really been put off buying it in any form. I would love for it to come back. I'd pay a fiver a week to have a great newspaper once a week, with periodic updates during the week for big events.
I want it to "thunder" again and be independent of control. The Sherlock/Kate/Ruairi Q have all made me think its very far from it and left me very disillusioned.

When we post their articles here (with links and credit!) they complain to us about copyright. When they mine AH for stories and dont credit.... its called "research".

Wibbs

44leto wrote: »

I notice a lot of topics are usually started by quotations or a link to a press article from the old media. If you want to give a post or a point some credence you will link it to an old media source and not a blog.

Aye and that's the problem with "new media". It seems to overwhelmingly break down into lots of raw data and lots of opinion pieces springing from that. There can be a serious vacuum, or lack of cogent filter in the middle. A new new media may be required. I'm not so sure it'll come from the ranks of the current new media. Just because everyone has a say, or gets enough likes on a blog, it doesn't mean they're worth listening to. There are millions of video cameras in cupboards around the world, but precious few [___________] insert your fave director here. Plus the new media can often exaggerate the numbers and effect it appears to have.

I read the Sunday Times each week, I cannot link to their articles, on the internet it is subscription only, the way the other quality ones will have to go eventually. They deserve payment for the service they provide, we can't always expect it for free.

True but as Dev said, they do enough data mining and cool hunting for free themselves.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye and that's the problem with "new media". It seems to overwhelmingly break down into lots of raw data and lots of opinion pieces springing from that. There can be a serious vacuum, or lack of cogent filter in the middle. A new new media may be required. I'm not so sure it'll come from the ranks of the current new media. Just because everyone has a say, or gets enough likes on a blog, it doesn't mean they're worth listening to. There are millions of video cameras in cupboards around the world, but precious few [___________] insert your fave director here. Plus the new media can often exaggerate the numbers and effect it appears to have.


True but as Dev said, they do enough data mining and cool hunting for free themselves.

True but your thinking of news in the traditional context rather than content. I'm now subscribed to tons of blogs belonging to people who are experts in their fields. Previously the only way that I'd get access to their analysis on current events/society/ etc was when it was filtered through a journalist and editor who were more interested in skewing the content for a headline or who would ignore the content as it didn't fit in with their own angle. the information is out there now and you can chose your own filters.

Wibbs

I have a few links to blogs by real experts myself Bambi and that aspect is bloody brilliant. Yes the info is out there, if you have the faculties, hell the interest to discern the guff from the smooth(c). Even judging by your join date here, you're likely well festooned with quality filters based on experience. A remarkable amount of people, even some interweb savvy people are not, particularly those for whom the web has always been there, or those who rarely enough use it.

As LL put so well in his response to DV;

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

someone like yourself, a self confessed lover of journalism who was in on the ground floor of an ever growing new media platform is going to be far better placed to sift through the wealth of information and disseminate the good from the bad from the downright ugly. You are well placed to become your own journalist. In my view, it is dangerous to assume that everyone has such ability.

Plus it's dangerous or maybe naive is a better word(?)to assume how much of the majority of people in the world with access to the web bother digging beyond the very surface. If you're coming from a deep involvement with a form of media the danger is you'll over estimate it's effect on others who do not. After all most journos will likely consider their particular vector, print/TV/radio the "best".