You think this organization’s judgement is some objective algorithm and doesn’t contain its own subjective biases?

Yeah, some people work. Have you read Manufacturing Consent?

Either way, the summary is pretty accurate after watching. He devoted 30 seconds to recognizing that anti communism was a major pillar of the news media back then, at least. But that is a major reflection of exactly how they weren’t “unbiased” and basically shows how the regulations and fairness doctrine did very little to expose Americans to ideas outside those accepted by the elites who owned and ran NBC, CBS, ABC, and NYT/WaPo. So to claim that it’s mostly true that they were “unbiased” back then is still a bit ridiculous after such an acknowledgement. “They were mostly unbiased unless you count mainstream, elite American opinion of the 50s/60s as a type of bias”…

Again, no look at the structure of the news media and how they treated the US government’s and major corporations’ words as a major form of sourcing, the importance and influence of advertising, etc.

He has a handful of chosen examples. Manufacturing Consent has case studies documenting coverage of specific events from these media sources.

The populace wasn’t more educated when everyone got their news from the same 5 sources (and a more educated populace is what we should want from our news media.)

They just all mostly agreed and said the same things. There was still bias, it just wasn’t as partisan and people were less likely to disagree because there wasn’t anyone saying otherwise. The faux neutrality was a facade.

If that’s the summary, then the video is overly simplistic and doesn’t understand the actual concept of media bias. The news was biased then too, especially foreign coverage, and it was biased before then. I mean, this goes all the way back to the USS Maine at the very least.

Anyone who wants to talk about media bias and hasn’t read Manufacturing Consent or other similar work needs to be banned from the topic. Learn about the propaganda model. Maybe also read about the Committee on Public Information and Edward Bernays while you’re at it.

I can’t take anyone seriously who really thinks the overall news landscape was less biased when there were only a handful of networks determining news on TV and less alternatives in the print media as well.

Edit: Longer, but better

I’m sorry but this isn’t “world news” to me. Random drunken tragedies are hardly something useful to keep me informed on what is happening in the world.

No, you see:

1. I was drunk when I replied because I do have a social life
2. Mocking you wasn’t part of my argument. I made that in the first paragraph (about context and similarly). I just mocked you because I didn’t like you. As you know, Professor Logician, an insult being included in an argument doesn’t necessarily make the argument an ad hominem.

The original user didn’t reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.

Unlike them, I do hope you get “attacked” by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓

Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.

There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.

In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.

In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I’d worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.

And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said “it’s water” instead of specifically “it was a water gun squirt”. “hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent”. Wow. Thanks.

And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were “attacked” by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force’s time and wouldn’t be exaggerating the situation?

It’s incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as “attacked”. Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn’t “attack” any of y’all this summer.

The point is idiotic and ignores all context between the two acts. It literally does compare the two acts or it’s irrelevant to bring up. That’s what an analogy does.

Except for dumb as shit Internet debater assholes who base their usernames on mid tier novelists, I guess.

Yes a kid being bullied by their peers in a school with a bucket of water is the same as adult tourists in a foreign city being squirt as a protest against rampant overtourism. Why didn’t I see the overt similarities. It’s definitely more than just the use of water

This analogy is a ridiculous false equivalence.

The people who have power will care if tourism dropped because tourists are made literally uncomfortable by local protests and that becomes known to potential travelers

They do campaign against their governments. They’ve now gotten international news coverage for confronting tourists, an action that could cause many to pause when considering visiting the city. The people who run the city will notice that and so will potential future tourists.

Sounds like it could be potentially impactful to me.

They do and have. Why are y’all in here acting like the Catalonian activists aren’t also running local campaigns against their regional and national governments?

Attacking tourists

It’s water

Kinda seems like we should just listen to the French then

The FUD spreaders continuing to spread FUD. You know what’s great for Lemmy, this platform you’re using that was developed by that Dev you’re coming for? Inter instance drama, surely.

Cold War 2 bullshit.

Games “back in the day” weren’t made with algorithms designed to mess with your psychology to keep you playing, even if you hate the game. They didn’t design the games into evergrinds that only a few sweaty types and professionals can genuinely enjoy either. Old games had a logical, satisfying end where you would put them down afterwards.

Well, many old games were. Arcade games specifically were often designed to get coins from players, with extreme difficulty encouraging grinds and sweaty playthroughs to achieve mastery.

If anything, multiplayer and GaaS brought us back there.

Many new games, especially single player games, are still designed with “fun” in mind, or with even loftier goals and themes, many without exploitative gameplay loops, yet still with distinct, pleasing graphics, art styles, and polished gameplay.

Unfortunately the author has a few paragraphs that miss the mark and strike me as coming from more of a centrist or right-wing “kids these days are too soft” which feels very off-base and disconnected from the issue.

Welcome to The Atlantic. It’s telling they think all these issues are because of phones and not other aspects of society or something like the looming, ever present threat of climate change.

It’s basically The Economist lite at this point.

deleted by creator

Yes, it can.

Exactly.

Imagine thinking it’s wise to ignore the factors that led to the rise of fascism and believe there’s nothing useful to learn from them.