Piped alternative

Davos elites seem nostalgic for a time when “they were the gatekeepers and owned the facts”. Imagine being held to a higher journalistic standard!

  • kippinitreal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    To give them benefit of the doubt, maybe they meant that they were trusted to be factual. “We owned the news” could mean most people thought “I trust the WSJ so if they say so it must be true”. But now in the age of misinformation, no one can be trusted.

    But all this was said at Davos, the literal comic con for billionaire assholes. Its more likely they were talking about a news monopoly, facts be damned.

    Dammit! I wish there were a news owner who could tell me what to think! /s

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean, they lost all credibility the second Rupert bought them. The willingness to sell cast doubt on their credibility prior to the sale.

    • merdaverse@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yes, I gave her the benefit of the doubt as well, but framing it as “we were the gatekeepers” and seeming annoyed that they have to be more transparent about their process is an… interesting way of presenting the argument.

      I didn’t find the full context for the video, but I don’t think she was talking about the problem of misinformation. Even if they have credible sources that 99% of experts agree on and a transparent process, misinformation will still be spread (see climate change denial). So I think that’s a different problem entirely.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Anyone who would actually say that quote out loud in front of a camera clearly means the latter. People who value public trust would never think of saying a sentence like that, because the focus would be on their relationship with the public and not on themselves.

      • kippinitreal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Good point! No one brags about control because they care about those they control. Its the power they value.

      • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Definitely only destroyed. While journalistic integrity has always been something fragile and often lacking, the shift of news media to try to capture the social media audience while simultaneously trying to “compete” with the content aggregators has led to much more vapid and misleading reporting.

        24 hour cable news was the death knell for news media, and social media has been the final nail in the coffin. It accelerated the decline in journalistic standards to a ridiculous degree.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I have zero idea what you mean when you say that it has destroyed society. Can you explain?

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Before social media, we used to converse in physical spaces and got more diverse ideas and attitudes. After social media, the algorithms (and ourselves) nudge us into ideological spaces where diversity suffers.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You mean pushing lies and propaganda for israel that were debunked in a few days made them lose credibilty? Crazy.

  • muse@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    For just a dollar a week, you too can support neglected billionaires unable to keep their stranglehold on the narrative