Interesting, and certainly a bleak picture. But I think it raises questions it doesn't intend to."at its worst, a collection of trivia; much of it untrue, all of it narrow, shallow and sensational."That's different from the legacy media which can be trusted to tell us what's important and true?"Its commercial success preempted any discussion about media and democracy or journalistic ethics"There's no such discussion right now? The rise of the blogosphere has raised questions of partisan journalism and reportorital ethics -- but not just for bloggers.Sorry, but for all the legitimate concerns raised, this comes across as a PR piece from a guild threatened by outsiders. I'd take it more seriously if the major news organizations had better claims to objectivity. Sure, there's the danger that in an explosion of information that people will be overwhelmed and led astray. But this dystopian future assumes that people aren't interested in truth. The piece seems to suggest, "Don't listen to those people; listen to me! I have the truth."How is this any different from the Times telling people not to read the Post?
At 5:02, did you catch the guy's name? Winston Smith. Heh.I knew a stand-up comedian who rendered that name: Salem Jones. Double heh.
Delayed response: Jeff, I didn't even notice WHO put that piece together. Frankly, I thought it was an amatuer job given the slow pace, etc. and am very much surprised to find that professionals did it. Thanks for the heads-up!What I found disturbing was the idea expressed towards the end. I came away with the idea that news will be increasingly tailored to fit our personal preconceptions and that it will become even more difficult to determine the reality of a given situation. Balkanization of the truth. I think it is happening now, although it is much more obvious than it will be when professionally prepared and delivered.
Post a Comment