The first industrial revolution driven by coal in the mid to late 1700’s. It introduced the Romantic era emphasizing the arts.
The industrial revolution driven by oil, gas and electricity. It emphasized technological advances.
The 1980’s brought us the computer revolution. It transformed the way humans communicate and gave them access to the world’s knowledge base at the tip of a finger.
It follows that these revolutions not only affect language but also the balance between critical thought and emotions and not always in a predictable manner.
A study conducted on the question of whether conspiracy theories have increased as the result of modern era social media concluded that:
“It may be that conspiracy theories have been a constant, but that scholars, policymakers, and journalists are only recently beginning to pay appropriate attention to them. Thus, our findings offer both good and bad news: good, in that conspiracy theory beliefs are not increasing across the board; bad, in that conspiracy theories may be a more persistent and ubiquitous feature of human society than is desirable. Scholars still have much to discover about the psychology of conspiracy theory beliefs, as well as the role that elite communication and the information environment play in promoting those beliefs. In the meantime, we recommend caution in sounding alarms regarding the ‘golden age’ of conspiracy theories and the degeneration of society into a ‘post-truth’ era.
Regarding a post truth era, I would note that in the relatively short period of time since this research was completed, we have witnessed the final collapse of journalism in the mainstream media and the abandonment of all pretense of reporting facts in favor of maintaining a crafted narrative intended to sway public opinion. What are the effects on the human psyche of not being able to believe anything one sees and reads?
Correct. It’s my opinion based on a lifetime of observation and partnership with a conscientious and reputable journalist.
To clear up your confusion, a thesis is a long-form piece of academic writing, It is generally a degree requirement for Master’s programs, also sometimes required to complete a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts colleges.
I am using the first definition. It is fashionable to say things like:
But when you ask those same people to prove it by, say, pointing to 5 completely fabricated news stories in today’s WP or NYT, or any other site with journalistic standards, they can’t.
The other issue here is what I call historic relativity.
Is MSM more truthful or less truthful than 50 years ago?
I remember my grandfather railing about how MSM lied about everything all the time. That was 50 years ago. So, if MSM was as untruthful then as it is now, and the Republic prospered 50 years ago, then I would say that the present level of truthfulness in MSM is adequate for continued prosperity, since nothing has changed.
If, on the other hand, some people believe that MSM is less truthful in 2024 than it was in 1974 then they should show facts to back it up. Otherwise, they are just being touchy-feely.
Interesting how you demand facts from someone for merely stating an opinion but without provocation you counter without facts of your own. You don’t agree with my opinion? Fine. Dredging up supposed quotes from your dead ancestors and grabbing an unrelated subject (prosperity) out of thin air to prove your point is irrelevant. I get it, bad day at work, looking for somebody to get into a pissing contest.
Have a great day.
Can we please have the fairness doctrine put back in place? Ronnie Raygun really took a sledge to the through hulls when he vetoed that attempted codification in common sense regulation. I truly feel we would not be where we are today had that one morsel of FDR remained.
Is that something we as a nation can agree on? I feel that most of us, in principal, on a cellular level, feel our free press should be honest and truthful with us all the time. Offer various viewpoints on different subjects, build versus tear down community, show a squirrel waterskiing every now and then.
Is it such a first amendment overreach for the government to expect for profit news corporations to not lie to the public at large?
(language shift was) paralleled by a shift from a collectivistic to an individualistic focus as reflected, among other things, by the ratio of singular to plural pronouns such as “I”/”we” and “he”/”they.”
In general some nations tend to shift to more individualistic values as they become more wealthy.
What social media gave us was fake facts and minorities with large voices.
Now the media beholden to advertisers who react to the loud minorities.
Plus foreign players using all those tools to change your opinion
Perhaps your like OM, facts only come from the internet because they are experts?
Maybe its only now that the scientific model is being checked or the market for fake papers is expanding?
Of course the media landscape has changed a great deal in that time. Before the rise of the internet MSM mostly reflected the so-called ‘elite consensus’. Not lies / true so much as what get covered, framing and so forth.
Now with digital and social media it’s much easier to find reliable sources that challenge that consensus.
Of course that also allows people to pick sources that align with their beliefs.
Interesting link about that here. (From Marginal Revolution)
To pretend that in the last 50 years, the use of algorithms, the increase and speed of dissemination and the competition for clicks have had no effect on news content defies logic.
“Over the past 30 years, journalism in the United States has gradually shifted towards more opinion-based content that appeals to people’s emotions and relies heavily on argumentation and less on objective news coverage…”
This is from the linked article in the above post:
According to this report, traditional newspapers have changed the least since the late 1980s. However, the content in most newspapers did shift slightly from a dry, academic style of writing to a more narrative style.
The newspapers are probably as reliable as they were a few decades ago. The difference is that with social media it’s possible to find reliable critics of how MSM reports and frames the news.
