As IF Times

In the early days of journalism, the ability of a news item to reach the front pages of a journal likely meant that, on the whole, the story had some verifiable truth.  The entire purpose of newspapers was to convey… news.

Competition was quite intense for the mantle of the fastest and most accurate news source and reporters were always after the big scoop that would make their careers.  How quaint such times were since such values and markets have changed dramatically over the past half century.

As we know, the news business has now merged inextricably with the entertainment business and platforms have morphed from the  pulp print press, to TV, video and social networks.  The ‘news’ these days is as much entertainment as it is news. The notion of waiting for the 6 o’clock news to find out what’s happening in the world is as quaint as waiting until the evening to call long distance because rates are cheaper.

Having a limited time to post significant news events to the public meant that news outlets had to condense as much meaningful news as possible into the small window of people’s rapt attention.  Ted Turner changed this entirely by introducing CNN in 1980.  From then on, news did not wait for the 6pm broadcast, it was available 24 hours a day.  Of course we know what’s happened since then.  Numerous other competitors emerged and now technology has given us real time news on independent video and social platforms.  Nowadays, news outlets often source these alternate platforms for their own content.

But as we know, there is only so much relevant news at any given time.  Sure, there are innumerate dog bites man stories, but on the whole, the big picture stories that really affect us do not require a 24 hour barrage of reportage.   So instead, to fill the gap between updates of genuine events, all platforms have utilized what can only be described as filler stories.  To fill the empty times available, all manner of opinion givers, fluff pieces and intellectual detritus are offered in order to try to attract eyeballs and listeners.  We are treated to the utterances of all kinds of nutters as networks try to fill their precious airtimes.

On any given day, on any given platform, we can find all manner of stupidity that would never have seen the light of day in more sane times.  As an example, recently there was a story from the LA Times reporting that white people polluted the air of minorities while driving through their neighborhoods on the way to work.  In another piece of brilliance, a view was expressed on TV that 2 plus 2 equaling 4 was a racist construct.  This kind of detritus actually alienates people from paying attention to any kind of news.  They lump all news from these sources as nonsensical fluff. It’s as if the National Enquirer held editorial influence over all journalism.  As an aside, the Enquirer can’t even be considered a tabloid anymore…they actually report news.

The result is that ‘mainstream’ news providers become less and less influential or relevant while at the same time, targeted topic sites attract viewers.   Information and news has become increasingly balkanized so that people can choose what kind of information they want to consume as they do for specialized topic TV channels.  Many have found refuge in outlets containing only stories about NFL football, or golf or sewing or the latest Kardashian adventure.  In doing so, they automatically tune out all other irrelevant news and unwittingly become ignorant of real world issues.

While this is all well and good, this could well create populations that are ignorant of the events that affect their lives because their information focus is so narrow.  There was a segment on the old Tonight Show with Jay Leno called Jaywalking in which random people on the streets were asked simple questions about common knowledge things.  Often, the respondents, notably college students, failed miserably and comically to have any knowledge of real world events or commonly known facts.   While many of us were amused by the ignorance of such people, I’m not sure it wasn’t a genuine sampling of the general population.  I’m reminded of the classic computer programming maxim: GIGO, which means, garbage in, garbage out.

link:  https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/25/23028323/elon-musk-twitter-offer-buyout-hostile-takeover-ownership

The biggest story of the past week is not the on-going conflict in Ukraine, nor the suspicious election in France, nor the ongoing implosion of the US economy and thankfully, not the pearl clutching moaning about Covid.

Edging out by a nose the trials and misadventures of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was the news of billionaire Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

For years, the Twitter platform had been accused of being a biased environment wherein conservative voices were censored in favor of narratives more in line with woke sensibilities.  This has always been denied at the company, but oddly, now that the buyout will move management into the hands of a presumably more libertarian owner, the bleating cacophony from the outraged twits is what you might hear if you dared remove food from a murder of crows.

Twitter rose from being a public bulletin board on which anyone was free to express their views on any topic; a virtual free speech soapbox.   Since mass media is so tightly controlled by a few players, having an open forum to vent views was clearly something that resonated with the public and the platform grew from just a virtual bathroom wall to become a monstrous commercial juggernaut with enormous reach and worth billions ( 45 at last count).

It was because of the monolithic aspect of mainstream news and media outlets that Twitter achieved such gravity.  However as time went on, the platform took on the role of moderator of views rather than being a conveyor of them.  Increasingly there was less and less effort in hiding the fact that hard core woke people had taken over the platform.  Thus, influential people were banned from the platform when stating things that, while true, did not pass the sniff test of the Twitter gatekeepers.  Oddly, the most despotic people on the planet continued to have voice there, Iranian mullahs for example.  It became high school on steroids where the cool kids allowed you to play….or not.

If we are to believe the deniers, who up until recently controlled the levers at Twitter, that they were not restricting access to undesirable views, then what possible difference would it make to have a new owner on board.  Clearly, the truth and reality will be revealed for all to see.

Obviously, some kind of free speech platform is needed as a counterweight to the overwhelmingly biased and laughable content offered by all other media outlets.

Many other free speech platforms have tried to copy Twitter’s model in the past few years, but most have fallen into the same trap as Twitter by censoring certain voices, so ‘free speech’ was still determined by somebody.  Even the much anticipated Truth Social is hamstrung by not being available on the Android platform.  To my knowledge only Gab has remained free of any restrictions.   It’s worth noting that CNN promoted a product labelled CNN+.  It failed after only 3 weeks in operation.  We’re unclear as to why anyone would think there’s a market for more CNN.  It’s evident that the marketplace wanted voices other than the tiresome drivel offered by mainstream media.

In a time when information is so heavily managed, platforms in which real truths can be shared and consumed are a necessity and should not be controlled by biased elements.   We’ll see what changes will come with Musk’s ownership, but it may be that the tyranny of the woke may be over.  Perhaps this will spur other organizations to see that the market for real news and unbiased reportage is huge….worth at least 45 billion.