That last one’s a bit of a stinger for those in the UK, isn’t it?
I wonder if any notion of solidarité is doomed, at least in the long-term, now that each of us has his own news broadcast and the idea of commonality of information is fatally wounded. If we don’t - and choose not to - agree what “the facts” are, then how can we agree on how to deal with them?
One interesting aspect of this is that most of my friends and relatives in the UK now regard Channel 4 as the only reliable television news source. Channel 4 is state-owned but funded by advertising, so unlike the BBC it has some level of independence from both government and big business. This highlights for me that a free press is only really possible given diversity of ownership and funding sources.
Regulation of both internet and conventional media has failed to secure sufficient diversity - though there is still more on the internet than in conventional media generally - a view I’ve put on John’s ‘Facebook’ thread - so I don’t see any direct connection between the personalised nature of internet newsfeeds and loss of social solidarity. It’s the French mass media, surely, that is fascinated by say Zemmour, just as the UK mass media was by Farage (highest number of appearances on BBC Question Time this century!).
Ah, but you’re a fan of facebook and the like, aren’t you, which must colour your judgment. It’s difficult to argue that people must be influenced* by mass media, yet are immune to the much more targeted, private, reinforcing narrative they get on Twitter et al.
Well, the mass media - especially, in France, because of the advertising revenue they get (as to whether mixed income is the only way a free press can exist, I’m not sure) - are keen on ratings, and colourful characters drive ratings.
Not at all Porridge - I’ve actually never used Facebook at all in a personal capacity - only for business. I feel (naturally) that I have a sceptical, objective, evidence-based view of both social and conventional media.
It would be ironic indeed though if you are claiming in a post on social media that you’re not a fan of social media!
The evidence that people are influenced by conventional media is overwhelming. For example strong correlations between people’s misconceptions and media misreporting, when they could easily find out the real facts elsewhere. I’m sure the same is true of social media, though I’ve seen less decent academic study of this.
I do though think at least some of the division of opinion over this is simply political: if you see the world in ways that are close to ‘mainstream’ media, you tend to miss its bias - it is for you a giant echo-chamber - and see the diversity of views on the internet as a problem; on the other hand, if your world-view is a little more independent of the current centre, or status-quo, the bias in the mainstream is evident, and you are therefore more likely to welcome different perspectives.
I’m personally closer to the latter position. Given enough diversity of views there are bound, of course, to be lots of barmy ideas - and mini-echo-chambers - as there are in any large enough group of real people - the frequenters of any English country pub, for example.
Journalists think they have professional standards that filter out false information - and some do - but in reality these conventions are extremely weak, and, across the whole range of media, fail more than they succeed. The ‘truth’ as presented in proper academic studies, for example, is often very different indeed from journalistic ‘truth’.
With the internet, at least you know you have to be your own sceptical filter, so perhaps are less likely to be misled.
An old article - linked here in an attempt to bring together the discussions of the CNR and Internet…
This will really depress you Lizzy, (sorry)…
Perhaps that explains your sanguine opinion, @Geof_Cox. The problem is less with social media such as forums - though even on those - even on here, dare I say it? - groupthink creates an homogeneity of opinion. Here, for example, we’re largely liberal, pro-vaccine, anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, to the extent that those who have different opinions are shouted down by those who “feel (naturally) that … [they] have a sceptical, objective, evidence-based view of both social and conventional media” ((c) Geof Cox 2022).
The real problem is with social media like Facebook and Twitter, perhaps Instagram (I don’t use it enough to know). Facebook didn’t get to be the multi-billion-dollar company it is by presenting facts and cold, hard analysis: it did it by feeding people what they want and tempting them with what they didn’t know what they wanted, and leaving its algorithms to do the rest.
It has nothing to do with the views that are expressed, and everything to do with the way material is channelled to people’s feeds. (There’s also the “selection” factor: you choose who your “friends” are, or those whom you follow.) If you spend all your time on social media it’s pretty much impossible to get anything like a balanced view of anything.
I agree. If you read The Daily Mail everyday, quite apart from its explicit views, certain ‘material’ is indeed fed to you - although you have in a sense chosen to follow it, and it is certainly absolutely impossible to get a balanced view of anything… Oh, sorry! I didn’t spot you were talking bout ‘social media’ there!
The Gilets Jaunes were triggered by a tax that would have impacted mainly the poors. Taxes should not be used in a generic manner: there is a lot of difference between blind and furious taxes (remember the poll tax ?) and the ones based on incomes, or we can just stop talking of right and left…
You wag!
I agree about the Daily Mail (though, when I get the opportunity, I do read it, because I like to know what they’re thinking and saying, just as I read the Guardian and Independent, the Spectator and New Statesman), but it’s different, isn’t it? (you may not know if you use Facebook only for business) because there’s a very strong element of interaction with Facebook (which feeds the algorithms) which is just not present with the Press.
Whether that’s the reason for the decline of the Press in the UK is another question. I’m inclined to think it’s a factor.
I do think reading the Press is much healthier than using Facebook is (even though I feel a bit queasy after reading the Daily Mail).
Just seen this fascinating intervention in the internet vs. mass media debate by @John_Scully 's hero, Peter Oborne.
In October 2019, I parted company with the mainstream media after I wrote this article showing how much of the British media, broadcasters included, had become an embedded working part of the machinery of deceit in Boris Johnson’s Downing Street… I was also cut off by the BBC, where I’d been a regular presenter on Week in Westminster for two decades. The corporation at once ceased to use me, without explanation, notification or warning… Since the mainstream media weren’t even remotely interested in reporting Johnson’s lies, I set up this website…
Thanks for the link Geof.
I’m scratching me head about that Geof. I do like the look of the new publication but I can’t even remember when I endorsed Osborne. Age maybe.
Oh - perhaps it’s my confusion John - I thought you admired his book The Assault on Truth (about Bojo etc).
No Geof. Is it worth a read?
I haven’t read it John - but I’m pretty sure you recommended it somewhere on SurviveFrance - maybe a year ago?
We’re sounding like a couple of old gits that have forgotten what they came here for in the first place!
I’m enjoying how much this conversation feels like these two
I’m definitely the taller one…
No Geof, not guilty. But is does sound the sort of thing I would read.
Can’t be, I shaved off my (very dapper) moustache eight years ago.