squirrelyguy
Well-known member
So Fox News settled their defamation lawsuit with Dominion. Now Tucker Carlson is out.
CNN, NBC, and WaPo settled their lawsuits with Nick Sandmann a few years ago.
And of course, Alex Jones lost his defamation lawsuits with the Sandy Hook parents.
What does all of this mean? It ought to mean that we should not be taking any media outlets too seriously, and especially the ones that we consider to be part of our tribe. Tribal loyalty drives people to do and believe really stupid things.
This is something I've been thinking on a lot in recent years, especially since social media began taking over as the way in which most Americans get their news. It seems to me that the purpose of journalism in the 21st century is not to inform, but to entertain. This has probably been true to some extent since there have been journalists; but the problem has been exacerbated by the rise of social media in the past 15 years or so.
I know people (family & friends) who seem to question nothing whatsoever from a trusted media source. And by "trusted media source", I mean one that confirms their most dearly held political narratives. They apparently have no idea about how gullible they actually appear when they eagerly share some clickbaitish headline they read from their favorite social media influencer.
I have a neighbor who is in her 90s. She is a very active old woman and she's very, very opinionated. One afternoon she knocked on my door just to tell me (and I quote), "The Navy Seals have just arrested Hillary and they're about to arrest Obama." I responded with some remotely incredulous remark, which she didn't pick up on, and she then waved goodbye and said that she just wanted to let me know.
Now why would this elderly woman believe such an outlandish thing? And why would she feel compelled to share such an obviously false headline as if it's true? Because she's deceived by her need to be entertained.
At its essence, that's what all journalism is today: entertainment. Most of it is specifically political entertainment. It does not exist to inform but to amuse. When your goal is entertainment, you fudge the facts and exaggerate in order to keep your audience, and you call it "journalism."
I grew up watching pro wrestling. In the 1980s people were really just beginning to believe that it was staged, but there were many people who were slow in accepting this. In the wrestling business this is called "kayfabe." It was only through a series of media exposés and industry scandals that it was finally admitted publicly.
Today, most journalism is kayfabe journalism. The stories are not presented to inform but to entertain, and the details are exaggerated or outright manufactured in order to keep up the entertainment value. This kayfabe exists across the board, regardless of political leaning.
In conclusion, I highly recommend Neil Postman's modern classic Amusing Ourselves to Death.
CNN, NBC, and WaPo settled their lawsuits with Nick Sandmann a few years ago.
And of course, Alex Jones lost his defamation lawsuits with the Sandy Hook parents.
What does all of this mean? It ought to mean that we should not be taking any media outlets too seriously, and especially the ones that we consider to be part of our tribe. Tribal loyalty drives people to do and believe really stupid things.
This is something I've been thinking on a lot in recent years, especially since social media began taking over as the way in which most Americans get their news. It seems to me that the purpose of journalism in the 21st century is not to inform, but to entertain. This has probably been true to some extent since there have been journalists; but the problem has been exacerbated by the rise of social media in the past 15 years or so.
I know people (family & friends) who seem to question nothing whatsoever from a trusted media source. And by "trusted media source", I mean one that confirms their most dearly held political narratives. They apparently have no idea about how gullible they actually appear when they eagerly share some clickbaitish headline they read from their favorite social media influencer.
I have a neighbor who is in her 90s. She is a very active old woman and she's very, very opinionated. One afternoon she knocked on my door just to tell me (and I quote), "The Navy Seals have just arrested Hillary and they're about to arrest Obama." I responded with some remotely incredulous remark, which she didn't pick up on, and she then waved goodbye and said that she just wanted to let me know.
Now why would this elderly woman believe such an outlandish thing? And why would she feel compelled to share such an obviously false headline as if it's true? Because she's deceived by her need to be entertained.
At its essence, that's what all journalism is today: entertainment. Most of it is specifically political entertainment. It does not exist to inform but to amuse. When your goal is entertainment, you fudge the facts and exaggerate in order to keep your audience, and you call it "journalism."
I grew up watching pro wrestling. In the 1980s people were really just beginning to believe that it was staged, but there were many people who were slow in accepting this. In the wrestling business this is called "kayfabe." It was only through a series of media exposés and industry scandals that it was finally admitted publicly.
Today, most journalism is kayfabe journalism. The stories are not presented to inform but to entertain, and the details are exaggerated or outright manufactured in order to keep up the entertainment value. This kayfabe exists across the board, regardless of political leaning.
In conclusion, I highly recommend Neil Postman's modern classic Amusing Ourselves to Death.
