OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,436
- Points
- 1,260
When the big EMP happens and electronics fry there be a whole bunch of useless "influencers" starving.
Some of the bought & paid for media
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,573
- Points
- 1,040
When I say "Top 3" in telecomm, number 4 isn't close. It's not as if 4, 5, 6, etc are going to displacing one of the top 3. 10 times the population and a larger (proportionately) economy - why doesn't the US have more companies closer to each other in the top tier?Which makes the case that in Canada, it's tougher to compete, so regulation's in place - mind you, FAR from ideal regulation, and not helped by attempts to "help" by Team Red, but still different environments.
That's like saying there's a top 3 in pentathalon and a top 3 in cycling, ergo they're the same - different fields, different rules
Why things shake out that way are less interesting than this observation: there is no particular demonstrable reason for Canada to have a fourth competitor, except the federal government seems to think there should be one. Empirical observation doesn't show that. I doubt they have studies that show that. They're just intervening in the economy because of some notion that things should be different (at best), or to buy votes by appearing sympathetic to complainants (at worst). So the strategy is "hope". That's a dumb way to be spending money, and a dumb reason to be intervening in anything.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,573
- Points
- 1,040
"Editorialist" and "reporter" are both subsets of "journalist".
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,289
- Points
- 1,260
And many many many other types too.
Sure. My interpretation was using a different context. More your local reporter or journalist, CBC on scene type.
He’s more of an entertainer. At most a commentator. He covers a wide variety of topics. He’s not really that different from Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart.
But I don’t think he’s comparable to anything involving journalism.
- Reaction score
- 5,743
- Points
- 1,160
Agreed...but the comparison was made between him and CNN. Apples and Dishwashers.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,289
- Points
- 1,260
What does it say about journalism when more people want to hear what JR has to say than CNN ?
I don't see it as a confusion, I see it as loss of trust in establish media, their personalities and news outlets. Our legacy media and news did this to themselves.
Its "elitism". Our "elite" folks bought into their own righteousness and its been shown to be a scam. The overall power needs to rest with the common citizenry, and everything should be up for sacrifice to keep that.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,289
- Points
- 1,260
When more people want to know what he has to say on a subject than CNN, by a vast margin, the competition is afoot. Label it/him how ever you like.
I’m sure more people want to hear from Taylor swift or Oprah than CNN. Both have immense influence. I don’t go to them first if I get wind that something happened in the world.
Possibly. Also I think years of certain segments repeating it, reinforcing that idea and creating echo chambers also contributes to it. The internet and social media being the main driver that wasn’t there in the past. Nobody listens to the town cryer when we have printed press. Nobody needs printed now that we have TV. No one gets their news from TV now that we have the internet. Who needs the internet when Elon Musk can beam X into our brains with a chip. Etc.
Plenty of revolutions begin with that sort of slogan.
What makes western society what it is, is also the power of its institutions. Sacrificing the institutions of democratic systems only leads to bad things.
More people turned to Oprah to hear what she had to say than CNN also. Rogan and Oprah are essentially the same thing. talk show hosts with influence.
The problem is that people THINK that they are good substitutes for news and journalism when they are not.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,289
- Points
- 1,260
I couldn't agree more with this part of your post.
I would argue, however, that it isn't western society sacrificing the legacy media. Who would we make that sacrifice to? and what would we hope to gain from doing so?
The legacy media has sacrificed itself into irrelevance by sacrificing the very values and functions that made them important in the first place.
Well, I didn’t say that western society was sacrificing legacy media. I was arguing against the idea that all should be sacrificed for the common citizenry for them to keep the power.
I think that has more to do with how legacy media is portrayed. And the advent of emerging tech and platforms that they haven’t kept up with.
What values and functions have they sacrificed? More importantly are the « alternatives » actually adopting the values and functions that are claimed to have been lost? Or are they just giving people what they want to hear. Alex Jones? Tucker Carlson? Weird red pill content on YouTube? Rabble? These are all alternative sources people turn to but none of them seem to espouse any of the values and functions of that has supposedly been abandoned by legacy media.
The fact that some people think that Joe Rogan is news/jounalism tells me enough. I think he is a good source for discussions on some topics like any other talk show but he isn’t a source for news.
- Reaction score
- 8,651
- Points
- 1,140
I think the difference between Joe Rogan(and other podcasters) is that they bring on actual experts, then sit and have long form conversations about topics. Meaning that an actual expert can give a nuanced take on a topic, rather than the 30 second clip that gets featured(read butchered) in the news.
Now, Joe also brings on some crackpots and lets them talk, but then it's up to the audience to be smart enough to pick the BS out and ignore it. A perfect example is Graham Hancock, he has some crackpot ideas, but not all of what he says is wrong or terrible. There is an "establishment" archeology, that does ignore data that doesn't align with their pre-conceived ideas. There are still "credible" people in the world of archeology that don't believe the Norse ever came to North America... If a "science" like archeology won't accept new data that challenges its theories, then it's not a science and is instead a belief system.
Now, Joe also brings on some crackpots and lets them talk, but then it's up to the audience to be smart enough to pick the BS out and ignore it. A perfect example is Graham Hancock, he has some crackpot ideas, but not all of what he says is wrong or terrible. There is an "establishment" archeology, that does ignore data that doesn't align with their pre-conceived ideas. There are still "credible" people in the world of archeology that don't believe the Norse ever came to North America... If a "science" like archeology won't accept new data that challenges its theories, then it's not a science and is instead a belief system.
- Reaction score
- 7,168
- Points
- 1,360
FTFY - sadly
Meanwhile, from those wacky funsters who first brought you the Team Red/WE shenanigans, an idea - of sorts
Can Porn's Business Model Save The News Industry? | CANADALAND
Listen to Can Porn's Business Model Save The News Industry? from CANADALAND. After Max Krangle left Big Tobacco he went to work for the porn business. Jesse and Max explore whether the business lessons learned in porn, one of the world’s most successful enterprises, can apply to journalism, one...
shows.acast.com
Last edited:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,573
- Points
- 1,040
Hard to protect a "profession" against its own self-immolation.
I don’t think the difference is that wide. Plenty of people in legacy news organisations have podcasts and such to do exactly that. Standard news though is as you say stuck in 1 hour blocks broken into even smaller segments.
One thing I give Rogan credit for is giving dissenting voices a platform. That is healthy.
The issue is that he may be more of an outlier. Many many many of these environments are echo chambers and self validation platforms.
- Reaction score
- 8,651
- Points
- 1,140
100% agree on all counts, though I'd argue that a lot of legacy news podcasts are pretty dull from what I've seen. Part of what makes a podcast great is the "natural" feel of a conversation it has. I have found that most journalists revert to "interview" mode and it comes across as less natural.
On your last point, I agree 110%. The viewer/listener needs to be aware of falling for "cult of personality" type podcasts, that tend to fall into audience capture quickly. Tucker Carlson, Crowder, Young Turks, and H3 Podcast are likely all perfect examples of audience capture.
Similar threads
