The News Media

[Cognisant]

Currently there's news sources and news aggregators.

In order to be a news source you need access to as much information as possible, as quickly as possible, and deliver that information to the public and aggregators in as an objective and unbiased a format as possible.

Aggregators consume that information and turn it into a personalized take, this may involve spinning a story but that's generally a bad idea as other aggregators can build up their own reputations based on calling you out on any deception and pointing out when the available information doesn't fit your narrative.

The internet and social media has largely enabled aggregators to self-source information, meaning the legacy media's role as a source is now largely redundant, indeed being a source depends upon trust and trust in the legacy media is at an all time low. Despite this they still seem to think they are the undisputed official source and they continue trying to put spin on the news and tell stories, but as a source that's exactly what people don't want from them.

The biases of aggregators is accepted because they're individuals who are open about their biases, if you watch a video from the Lotus Eaters that openly and repeatedly admit they have a conservative right-wing bias so it's not dishonest of them to interpret the news from a conservative right-wing perspective. They don't claim authority on the subject.

Aggregators don't give you the news, they give you their take on the news, a take that has to stand on its on merits alongside and in contrast to the takes of other aggregators, nobody gets to claim exclusive authority on the subject.

The legacy media used to be both source and aggregator, the talking heads on TV were akin to the gods of Mt Olympus, even if they weren't always right, or even wrong more often than not, what they said was true in that nobody else had a platform powerful enough to challenge them. This is no longer the case.

Some independent aggregators are pulling numbers greater than news networks, collectively aggregators are pulling a greater audience than all the world's legacy media combined, there has been a fundamental shift in power.

I think this is a good thing, I think these aggregators represent a democratization of the news, I think the real solution to bad speech isn't censorship but rather good speech and having tens of thousands of peers ready to call out aggregators who practice bad speech is going to enforce a very high standard of journalistic integrity.

Joe Rogan, Asmongold, Carl Benjamin, if you want to be on their level you need to be a very chill person whose moral sensibilities are in line with society's consensus. Trump and Elon have their own cults of personality but that's based on them being movers and shakers, I don't think it's transferable, they're both loud and opinionated but I don't think either could achieve any real success as an aggregator. That separation of powers is soo good.

You can't buy the loyalty of these aggregators because their business model just doesn't work that way, people expect authenticity, consistency, they know who these aggregators are and that's why they trust them, so when an aggregator changes their tune that invites a lot of suspicion and is very harmful to their personal brand.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Supplementary to the topic. The "meme adoption curve".


It's funny because the "meme adoption curve" is an example of itself.

This is typically used in marketing/business contexts. Of course even this is an example of itself to some extent, because someone had to see statistical data that made such "stories" about adoption patterns. I guess it's turtles all the way down?

Suppose this is why at the front of the meme adoption curve reads "autists". The raw data was interpreted by someone with the (apparent) ability to interpret it. Most people don't identify with people who think logically as their job, so I would suspect that an even smaller amount of people are able to swallow that someone like themselves could find such truths: "it must be an autists. Someone who is gifted."

To address your take(s)

I think this is a good thing, I think these aggregators represent a democratization of the news, I think the real solution to bad speech isn't censorship but rather good speech and having tens of thousands of peers ready to call out aggregators who practice bad speech is going to enforce a very high standard of journalistic integrity.

I would agree if these two condition are true:

1: The person who is consuming such content could've came to similar conclusions on their own.
Ex: Some European guy has political views that he shares with his streamers, and the streamers who are a worldwide audience adopt these beliefs without regard to their own identity and environment.

2: The person who is broadcasting such commentary is expressing their own authentic "unfiltered" messages.
Ex: Coffeezilla as a journalist doesn't take sponsorships because he believes it would influence his messaging.

You can't buy the loyalty of these aggregators because their business model just doesn't work that way, people expect authenticity, consistency, they know who these aggregators are and that's why they trust them, so when an aggregator changes their tune that invites a lot of suspicion and is very harmful to their personal brand.

Well, Asmonggold made almost a complete 180 when everyone shat all over him. Shortly after he cleaned his room and got a pat on the back. I couldn't tell you what his hardcore fans reaction to this was, but I suspect that they are still involved with the guy the personally have turned into a millionaire.

This next point doesn't really have anything (to persistently) foundational to stand on but; I don't think its valid that these influencers would be free from bias and that (even part of) their audience will hold them accountable.

These influencer people are basically the most popular people in aggregate groups. They don't exist as a function of some teleological and prudent purpose. They exist because humans are social and the social exists to meet certain economic and interpersonal ends.

Not inherently bad, but definitely playing with something that could very easily crush an individual or small group, even the influencer themselves. The material outcome of this, tends to never really benefit the big groups tho, mostly the influencer, even when its bad publicity.

 

[fluffy]

An official source is something to consider when you need to verify. Then there is the original source but also it depends on the research you are doing. How deep are you going into a subject.

News is not just about a report but about the knowledge we have of the world. Sometimes I watch documentaries and they leave things out as I have seen.

People can be easily influenced especially at a young age. That things are a certain way when it is more complex.

That curve where the autists create the memes such that they did extensive work on it is partially correct. Not that all people have autism but that smart people are ahead. Example that I knew of the 3% rule for meme spreading by the one guy over ten years ago who studied Internet memes since 1997 there about.

I spent 20 years researching AI

Only since 2023 did the meme get big.

News then has more aspects. A social network effect did not create everything but it allows those in the know to begin the process. The top news orgs have a place where you check first in some cases but your social circle is what drives your knowledge of things more.