#the 24 hour news cycle and sensationalism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

unraveling-the-giopolitics · 2 months

Text

The Crisis of Journalism: Exploring the Failures of Modern Media

In an era dominated by information overload and rapid dissemination, the failures of journalism have become glaringly apparent. From sensationalism to bias and the propagation of misinformation, the pillars of responsible reporting seem to be crumbling under the weight of commercial interests and the relentless pursuit of clicks. Let's delve into the key factors contributing to the failure of journalism in today's society.

1. Clickbait Culture: In the race for online engagement, many media outlets prioritize sensational headlines over substantive reporting. Clickbait tactics lure readers with exaggerated or misleading claims, sacrificing accuracy and integrity for the sake of web traffic. As a result, meaningful journalism takes a backseat to sensationalist narratives designed to generate clicks and ad revenue.

2. Polarization and Bias: Media outlets increasingly cater to specific ideological or partisan audiences, fueling polarization and reinforcing existing biases. Instead of presenting balanced perspectives, many journalists succumb to the pressures of echo chambers, amplifying divisive rhetoric and deepening societal rifts. This lack of objectivity undermines the credibility of journalism and erodes public trust in the media.

3. Misinformation and Fake News: The proliferation of social media platforms has facilitated the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news. In the absence of rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight, false narratives gain traction, sowing confusion and undermining the public's ability to discern truth from fiction. Journalistic integrity suffers as misinformation spreads unchecked, further eroding trust in the media.

4. Corporate Influence: As media conglomerates consolidate power, journalistic independence is increasingly compromised by corporate interests. Editorial decisions are often influenced by advertisers and corporate stakeholders, leading to self-censorship and the suppression of stories that may be detrimental to business interests. This cozy relationship between media outlets and corporate entities undermines the watchdog role of journalism and impedes accountability.

5. Decline of Investigative Journalism: In an era of shrinking newsroom budgets and layoffs, investigative journalism is on the decline. Resource constraints and the relentless 24-hour news cycle incentivize quick, superficial reporting at the expense of in-depth investigative work. Critical issues are overlooked, and systemic injustices go unchallenged, leaving society uninformed and vulnerable to abuse of power.

Addressing the failures of modern journalism requires a concerted effort to uphold the principles of accuracy, fairness, and accountability. Media literacy education is essential to empower audiences to critically evaluate information and discern fact from fiction. Moreover, media outlets must reaffirm their commitment to ethical reporting practices, prioritizing the public interest over commercial gain. Only through collective action and a renewed dedication to journalistic integrity can we rebuild trust in the media and fulfill journalism's vital role in a democratic society.

#corporate interests #media #lost media #failure #international politics #politics

0 notes

ubaid214 · 7 months

Text

Wellness Heart: Today's Medical Information

Media, by meaning, could be the communication of selected information on recent events. Throughout history, its position has been critical, serving since the lifeline of data to the masses. The channels and rate at which these records is conveyed have changed with time, developing with technology and societal needs. Today, as we stay amidst the digital time, let's explore in to the transformative journey of news.

The Early Times: Area Criers and Handwritten News

Before the innovation of the making push, information was disseminated mainly through word of mouth. City criers might walk the roads, screaming out information or proclamations. Concurrently, handwritten newsletters were circulated one of the elite, updating them on politics, conflict, financial conditions, and other events.

The Innovation of the Making Push

The creation of the printing push in the 15th century revolutionized the headlines industry. Newspapers became more accessible, fostering a far more educated public. As time passes, that generated the increase of literature as a profession and the establishment of editorial standards.

The Era of Broadcast: Radio and Tv

With the 20th century got the arrival of radio and tv, platforms that after again reshaped just how information was consumed. The immediacy of radio and the visible power of television allowed for faster and more interesting media updates. Critical functions were produced into living areas, connecting geographical holes and developing a more interconnected world.

Digital Domination: Internet and the 24-Hour Media Pattern

The internet has been the absolute most disruptive power in the news headlines industry. On line media tools, blogs, podcasts, and social networking have democratized data dissemination. The 24-hour media cycle means media breaks and updates round the clock, challenging real-time reporting. But with this particular speed comes issues: the chance of misinformation, sensationalism, and the blurring lines between news and opinion. دکونیوز

The Period of Personalization: Tailored Information Bottles

Modern technology formulas curate customized media feeds based on individual tastes and behaviors. This tailoring means people in many cases are exposed to data that aligns with their active values, resulting in considerations about echo chambers and the polarization of society.

Problems in the Electronic Era

While the net has democratized information entry, it has also flat the way in which for misinformation and fake news. The growth of unchecked and unverified material has blurred the lines between fact and fiction, underscoring the significance of press literacy.

The Potential: Enhanced and Virtual Truth

The horizon of news use looks set to change yet again with the rise of increased and virtual reality. These systems assurance immersive news activities, perhaps revolutionizing storytelling and the audience's engagement.

In Conclusion

The development of information shows humanity's implicit must be educated and connected. As technology remains to improve, it is going to be required for literature to affect a stability between pace and accuracy, ensuring that the general public stays well-informed in a ever-changing digital landscape.

0 notes

relativelyfvcked · 4 years

Text

#i truly do not understand why people left tumblr for twitter its so fucking bad #tumblrs a goddamn walk in the park compared to that 24 hour sensationalized pop culture news cycle fronting as a social media platform

7 notes · View notes

0l0x · 2 years

Text

Anonymous asked:

What do you think of the state of America at this point? Personally I’m disgusted, enraged, and scared shitless! Blue states cities being burnt to the ground and filled with homeless refugees while the democrats do absolutely nothing to solve these issues. Red states having been overtaken by literal fascist and are actively stripping away human rights while the rest of the republicans do nothing to stop them. The climate crisis is now fully here and nothing can be done to stop it, not that Where doing anything about it anyway. And a nuclear world war with China and Russia now seem enviable.

The illusion of hope is gone and I’m struggling to not completely give into nihilism in the face of immediate doom. The only thing I think that could solve anything now is if a revolution happens that kicks out all these inept, corrupt fools that are destroying America from the inside! Sorry for my own mini rant, feeling super stressed about everything and needed to vent. What are your thoughts

On everything? Is their any hope left or do believe where all doomed!

Hey Anon. I don’t know where you’re located or how much current events personally affect you, but I’m sorry you’re going through all this stress. I used to worry myself inside-out about current events too. I did this because my mom was super bad about it, she’d have the news on literally 24/7 and rant to me about how the world is so awful. It turned me into a miserable, anxiety-riddled pessimist for half my life. It took many years of therapy to dig myself out of that mindset.

I’ll just say that the older I get, the less I worry about things I can’t control. I stopped reading the news years ago when I realized it was just a bunch of agenda-pushing, clickbait, sensationalism, and outright lies. There is absolutely nothing of value in the News(tm), it’s made purely to scare people and get clicks/eyes on the screen. If an event is really important thing that’s going to affect me, I always hear about it without ever glancing at news sources.

There’s no sense wallowing in the misery that news pushes onto you. Corporations WANT you to have a bleak, hopeless worldview. They WANT you to be scared so you’ll continue consuming more news. I watched my mom go through this cycle of consuming news every hour of every day, because it gave her a false sense of control. She had insanely high blood pressure from all the stress she caused herself by worrying about the entire world’s problems, and now she’s on her deathbed in her 60s because of it. Her blood pressure was so high for so long that it destroyed her heart.

Instead, ask yourself “What CAN I change?” and focus on that. The truth is, a single person can’t fight a tidal wave of shit, so don’t even bother putting that kind of responsibility on yourself. Let it go. It’s not your job to carry the entire world’s problems on your shoulders.

I can’t change the world or control anyone else’s behavior. What I CAN control are my own decisions and the space around me. I choose to be kind to people I interact with. I choose to vote for causes I believe in. I choose to ignore the media circus. I choose to pick up trash off my street every weekend. I choose to write and make art and take care of my mental and physical health. I choose to help my friends and family out when I can, and let it go when I can’t.

If we were all living in primitive, isolated tribes, it wouldn’t matter what another tribe was doing half-way around the world because we’d never hear about it. This 24/7 news cycle is a fucking curse, it’s unnecessary and horrible for human mental health. If another tribe’s actions will destroy us, then that’s the way it’s going to be. If a meteor is going to strike the earth and kill us all, then that’s the way it’s going to be. Volcano blows, Pompeii turns to ash. Sometimes it just be like that. I refuse to waste my time and energy worrying about doom and destruction that I can’t stop anyway. I watched my mom do that my whole life and now I’m watching her die from it.

Like, I literally live within the blast zone of an active volcano that only becomes more active with time. I’ve lived here all my life, and they’ve said it’s overdue to blow since I was a kid. I used to worry about the volcano erupting constantly when I was young, but not anymore. I realized if it’s gonna blow, it’s gonna blow, and no amount of worrying is going to prevent it. I choose to live my life as if the volcano wasn’t there at all, because it may as well not be until it blows.

I also live in an area that experiences frequent earthquakes (probably because of the volcano...). I’ve survived several major earthquakes in my life. The thing about earthquakes is, there is NO warning before they happen. They just happen, and god help you if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’ve been lucky so far. No buildings have collapsed on me yet. No bridges have fallen out from under me yet.

I attended school in a valley shaped like a bowl, where we would have flood drills every year in case the dam broke. The dam could break any time and that valley would fill up with water faster than most people could evacuate. I used to worry about the damn breaking, but again, I realized that it was a waste of my time and energy because there was nothing I could do to prevent it. It was totally out of my control.

Maybe these things have just conditioned me to take things one day at a time, I don’t know.

Just my two cents. I’m not sure if any of that is helpful to you. Thanks for opening up to me though, I’m honestly flattered that you would share your feelings with me. Try not to worry about things outside your own backyard, it’s seriously a waste of time and life is short. That’s my advice to you.

#ask

5 notes · View notes

missmentelle · 4 years

Text

Mental Health in the Time of Coronavirus

In the last couple of weeks, we have watched COVID-19 - commonly called ‘coronavirus’ - rapidly change from “some mystery illness in a small part of China” to a disease that will almost certainly be declared a global pandemic. As of right now, the virus is in 82 countries with more than 92,000 documented cases, and the news is constantly filled with reports about quarantines, school closures and deaths. This is a scary thing for all of us to go through - most of us have never lived through a global flu pandemic before, and if you already struggle with fear and anxiety, you may be struggling to cope with what’s going on.

If this looming pandemic is creating concerns for your mental health as well as your physical health, remember:

Don’t panic. Again, this is a frightening situation and many of us don’t know what to expect. But it’s important to avoid panicking. Panic is not productive, and it is not necessary. Remind yourself that there are concrete steps you can take to avoid exposure to the virus. If you have been possibly exposed, follow the guidelines that your country has put in place for those circumstances. Remember that the vast majority of cases of coronavirus will be mild, and that if you do get the virus, there are things you can do to protect your more vulnerable loved ones from catching it. Avoid buying up massive amounts of supplies and medical masks - this behaviour is only creating unnecessary shortages. Do what you need to do to keep a level head and stay optimistic; people are working around the clock to deal with this pandemic, and we are going to get through it. Panic does not change anything - it only makes your experience of this pandemic more miserable.

Get information from official sources only. For information about the virus, what precautionary measures you should take, what your risks of exposure are and what you should do if exposed, check the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control websites, or the official websites of your country’s health organizations. Do not rely on information from social media, blogs or your friends and family. There is a ton of misinformation out there, and none of it is helpful. Official sources are accurate, non-sensationalized, and give you the information you need to protect yourself while still remaining calm.

Limit your exposure to the news. The news cycle has picked up coronavirus in a big way, and there is basically 24/7 coverage of the virus now - you can effectively watch it spread in real time. Even the tiniest bits of news are amplified and repeated over and over again. If following news coverage of the situation is making you anxious and causing coronavirus to take up a lot of space in your mind, limit your exposure to news coverage. Getting hours upon hours of news about this every day is not healthy - if you are getting obsessive or anxious, turn off the news for a while. Check official websites every now and then for any updates in guidelines, and find other things to occupy your mind.

Maintain contact with friends and family. Even though official guidelines are to limit your exposure to crowds or possibly even stay home as much as possible, it’s important to avoid social isolation. Keep in touch with family and friends online, though phone calls, or through video calls. Play online video games together. Send pictures and memes. Have a movie party over Skype. Do what you need to do to maintain social connections, even if you are having to remain physically isolated from them for health purposes.

If you are quarantined or told to work from home, maintain a daily routine. If your work, school or health officials have instructed you to stay home and quarantine yourself, it’s important that you take steps to avoid falling into depression. Have a daily routine - get up, shower, get dressed and eat normal meals at regular times. Get some exercise. Eating chips in front of the TV for 12 hours per day might seem fun at first, but it’s a quick recipe for spiraling into a funk. Take steps to maintain some sense of normalcy and protect your mental well-being.

Talk to a mental health worker if you need to. There is no shame in admitting that this situation is taking a toll on you and that you need someone to talk to about it. If you have a therapist, bring this up in your sessions or book some extra sessions if you need them. If you don’t have a therapist, consider getting one, or check out online support groups and text-based resources like 7 Cups of Tea. Make sure you are keeping up with your medications if you have them, and let family and friends know if you need them to check on you more often or provide extra support.

Find healthy distractions. Find things to keep your mind off the situation in a healthy way - it’s essential to avoid obsessing or ruminating. Work on things that stimulate your mind - read books, learn a new language, do some art, write some stories. Maintain a normal sleep schedule. If you’ve always wanted to start that blog, write that screenplay or learn the Thriller dance, now is a great time to do it. Find things that put you in a positive space and make it possible for you to get through the day without going back to refreshing the news.

#missmentelle #askmissmentelle #coronavirus #covidー19 #covid-19 #covid19 #pandemic #mental health #health #mental illness #anxiety

483 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Laura Miller, Sleazy, bloody and surprisingly smart: In defense of true crime, Salon (May 30, 2014)

This stigmatized genre has much to teach us about the way crime and justice really work

Give me a book that begins with a time and a date and a boring address, something along the lines of "At 9:36 on March 24, 1982, Dep. Frank McGruff of the Huntington County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to 234 Maple Street in Pleasantville, North Carolina, a quiet, suburb 10 miles west of Raleigh, to follow up on reports of gunshots and screams."

There is nothing more generic than this sort of sentence -- which is why I was easily able to make one up on the fly -- and yet there's nothing more seductive, either. In it is promised: the regular-guy lawman (who always seems to have a new baby at home), the horrific crime scene (there is always more blood than anyone expects), the enigmatic object found lying in the foyer (marked with an X in the helpfully provided floor plan), the minute-by-minute timeline of that fatal half-hour, the witness reports that don't add up, the fractal-like multiplication of scenarios and theories and complications.

I've always felt somewhat sheepish about my appetite for true crime narratives, associated as they are with fat, flimsy paperbacks scavenged from the 25-cent box at garage sales, their battered covers branded with screaming two-word titles stamped in silver foil, blood dripping luridly from the last letter. The most famous practitioners of this louche genre -- Joe McGinniss, Ann Rule, Vincent Bugliosi -- come coated with a thin, greasy film of dubious repute and poor taste. (Can there ever be a valid reason to title a book "A Rose for Her Grave"?) True crime is also the mother's milk of risible tabloid journalism, of endless trashy news cycles in which the same photo of a wide-eyed innocent bride (where is she?); a gap-toothed kindergarten student (who killed him?); a bleary-eyed, stubbled suspect (why did he do it?) appear over and over and over again.

Occasionally, true crime is where literary writers go to slum and, not coincidentally, make some real money: Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song." It's not the Great American Novel, yet somehow such books have a tendency to end up the most admired works of a celebrated author's career. Is it because better writers tease something out of the genre that pulp peddlers can't, or is it just that their blue-chip names give readers a free pass to indulge a guilty pleasure?

By contrast, crime fiction has a better rep. It is the most respectable form of genre fiction, the one that even the snootiest literary critics will admit to enjoying now and then. They justly praise the innovative prose styles of Raymond Chandler or Elmore Leonard as vehicles for a distinctively American voice. And crime -- transgression of the social and moral order -- is one of literature's central themes, after all. Isn't one of the greatest novels of all time called "Crime and Punishment"? Plus, from Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men" to Toni Morrison's "Beloved," many novels by literary titans are crime fiction by another name.

True crime, however, labors always under the stigma of voyeurism, or worse. It's not just unseemly to linger over the bloodied bodies of the dead and the hideous sufferings inflicted upon them in their final hours, it's also kind of sick. Gillian Flynn's second novel, "Dark Places," describes the wincing interactions between its narrator -- survivor of a notorious multiple murder like the Clutter killings of "In Cold Blood" -- and a creepy subculture of murder "fans" and collectors; when she's hard up for cash, she's forced to auction off family memorabilia at their conventions. Yuck.

The very thing that makes true crime compelling -- this really happened -- also makes it distasteful: the use of human agony for the purposes of entertainment. Of course, what is the novel if not a voyeuristic enterprise, an attempt to glimpse inside the minds and hearts of other people? But with fiction, no actual people are exploited in the making.

I love crime fiction, too, but lately I've come to appreciate true crime more, specifically for its lack of certain features that crime fiction nearly always supplies: solutions, explanations, answers. Even if the culprit isn't always caught and brought to justice in a detective novel, we expect to find out whodunit, and that expectation had better be satisfied. A novelist who dares to build her narrative around a murder and then refuses to collar the perp by the last chapter -- as Donna Tartt did in her sumptuous, underappreciated second novel, "The Little Friend" -- will never hear the end of it. Readers of books and viewers of television and film demand not only to know who did it but why, preferably with a tidy little back story about a molesting uncle, bullying schoolmates or a mom who tricked with sailors in the next room. We believe in evil, but we also want pop psychology to explain it away.

Crime fiction reassures us that for every murder there is a sleuth as obsessed as we are with getting to the bottom of the puzzle. There are the formulaic clashes between the committed police detective and the self-serving brass, the feds who interfere with the locals (or vice versa) for purely territorial reasons, the nagging spouse and the occasional sloppy, time-serving colleague who just wants to wrap this thing up before he's set to retire with a full pension. But there's also always someone, the hero -- whether public officer or private dick -- who really, really wants to find out the truth and has the brains (and sometimes the brawn) required to do it.

Because most of us have a lot more experience with crime fiction -- TV and movies, but also books -- than we do with actual crime, our sense of how law enforcement works has been distorted by the imperatives of entertainment. Forensic scientists often complain that the public expects them to possess and deploy the wizardly high-tech tools they see every week on "CSI." Because the "CSI" team's gear is presented as omniscient and infallible, legal professionals must contend with jurors' overinflated confidence in forensic evidence. Even the most appalling news stories of incompetent or corrupt lab workers will never register as deeply as watching Gil Grissom and his earnest sidekicks stay up all night and ruin their marriages for the sake of seeing justice done.

For all their lingering shots of mangled bodies and gooey, maggot-ridden corpses, these TV procedurals paint a too-pretty picture. If Jack Nicholson were a true-crime author, he'd be telling the audience for such pseudo-gritty shows that they can't handle the truth. Finding myself seated next to a criminal prosecutor-turned-defense attorney at a wedding several years ago, I asked him what pop culture gets the most wrong about crime and punishment in America. After a long pause, he said, "I'm torn between two answers: How much police care about getting it right and how competent they are to do it."

True crime is not above trafficking in misleading clichés -- because, let's face it, there's not much that true crime is above. The majority of the genre is cheap sensationalism, deploying the most shopworn clichés: tragic maidens; idyllic small towns; smiling devils; winsome, doomed tots. Much true crime has achieved its goals if it gives its readers something to shiver over late at night or to whisper about at school. (Most of my early knowledge of true crime classics like "Helter Skelter" came from other girls who got ahold of the books while baby sitting and recounted the most horrific details to a breathless audience on the playground the next day.) Plenty of it offers a comforting message similar to that of crime fiction: that, for all the bewildering and seemingly random violence of this world, it is usually possible for us to know what really happened and who's responsible.

But we also live in a golden age when it comes to a more challenging vein of true crime. These books include Robert Kolker's "Lost Girls," about 14 unsolved murders in Long Island; Raymond Bonner's "Anatomy of Injustice," about the wrongful capital conviction of a black handyman for the rape and murder of an elderly white widow in South Carolina; Janet Malcolm's "Iphigenia in Forest Hills," about the celebrated journalist's inability to accept the guilty verdict against a young mother accused of hiring a man to murder her ex-husband; and Errol Morris' "A Wilderness of Error," which is in part a challenge to another milestone in the genre, Joe McGinniss' "Fatal Vision." Coming up next month is another landmark, "The Wrong Carlos," by James Liebman and the Columbia DeLuna Project, an exhaustively researched consideration of a 1980s case in which the state of Texas most likely executed the wrong man.

Even true crime books in which the identity of the killer is uncontested can open up welcome vistas of uncertainty. Recently, Anand Giridharadas' "The True American" examines the lives of two men: the sole survivor of a hate-crime spree, who forgave and tried to save his would-be killer, and the killer himself, who seems to have become a different man before his 2011 execution; who was he, really? Dave Cullen's masterful "Columbine," published in 2009, offers the most definitive account of the infamous school shooting and clears up many misperceptions, but still leaves the reader with a sense that the reasons for such acts may be fundamentally unknowable. Several years ago, when I was interviewing Margaret Atwood about "Alias Grace," her novel about a maid convicted of killing her master in 19th-century Canada, she remarked that murderers themselves often don't seem to understand their own crimes. They describe the acts as something that "just happened" or as if they were committed by someone else even as they acknowledge they did it. The true crime accounts I've read confirm what Atwood said.

Most important of all, true crime reminds its readers over and over again that most detectives aren't fantastically clever, that most investigations make dozens of significant mistakes and that even the most seemingly hard evidence can become as indeterminate as a quantum particle under sustained study. Sometimes the confusion is understandable. Jeff Guinn's "Manson," a biography of the murderous cult leader published last year, recounts how long the LAPD spent pursuing a bogus scenario in investigating the massacre at Sharon Tate's home.

Investigators assumed that because drugs were found on the premises, the motive was probably a drug deal or connection gone bad. Manson had his followers plant "clues," in the form of weird words written on the wall in blood, with the bizarre idea that the police would instantly link these words to the Black Panthers. (They instead assumed it was just crazy druggie writing, which of course it was.) Much time was lost before the cops were put on the right track by an informant. This, incidentally, is how most real-life whodunits, such as the Unabomber attacks, seem to be solved. There's nothing like true crime to dispel the notion that criminals get caught because of a detective's brilliant reading of the clues. Rather, they get caught because someone rats them out.

Nowhere is the danger of investigators' tendency to settle too early on a theory of the crime more evident than in stories of wrongful conviction. As "Anatomy of Injustice" tells it, police decided that Edward Lee Elmore, the simple-minded African-American man who had mowed neighborhood lawns for years, suddenly turned violent. Under the influence of a suspiciously meddlesome neighbor, a local city councilman, they ignored significant evidence contradicting this theory, and eventually resorted to falsifying evidence, while Elmore's own lawyers barely bothered to defend him at all. Finally, thanks to the efforts of an attorney working for South Carolina's Center for Capital Litigation, the conviction was overturned. The actual murderer has never been identified, but at least an innocent man has escaped death row.

Investigations aren't always led astray by deliberate manipulation, however. In "The Wrong Carlos," confused and inept handling of the crime scene, witnesses and hunt for the man who stabbed a convenience store clerk in Corpus Christi combined with coincidence and bad luck to lead to the unjust execution of Carlos DeLuna. He was the spitting image of the likely culprit to the degree that even people who knew either of the men quite well couldn't tell photos of them apart. Under the aegis of Liebman, 12 Columbia Law School students pored over the records of the case, producing a meticulous and highly detailed report on the crime investigation and trial -- which, while sobering, is also catnip for the amateur detective. It strongly suggests DeLuna was innocent and it's so convincing that even the victim's brother agrees.

Robert Kolker's "Lost Girls" and Errol Morris' "A Wilderness of Error" may be the most accomplished true crime narratives I've read in recent years. The killer or killers responsible for dumping bodies along a lonely Long Island road have yet to be identified. The investigation appears to be stalled for a variety of reasons having to do with the personalities and ambitions of local officials. So Kolker's "Lost Girls" focuses instead on the lives and families of the dead, young women who drifted into the world of prostitution and could not succeed at pulling themselves out again. It's a portrait of underclass life, frayed by substance abuse, domestic violence, crime and fecklessness, and it asks not what circumstances create a monster but which ones forge his victims.

"A Wilderness of Error" is remarkable not just for questioning a murder investigation and conviction but also for condemning the famous true-crime narrative written about them. Morris is a master of the genre, albeit in a different medium (documentary film) and can even claim to have gotten an innocent man out of jail by making "The Thin Blue Line" in 1988. Above all, he is preoccupied with how we establish what's true. His first book, "Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography," dismantles our faith in the facticity of photographed images. "A Wilderness of Error," his second, concerns the case of Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of murdering his wife and two small children in 1970. The crimes were the center of a bestselling book, "Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinniss, later made into a TV movie, that pressed home McGinniss' theory that MacDonald was a psychopath.

The writing of "Fatal Vision" was the subject of yet another book, Janet Malcolm's "The Journalist and the Murderer," devoted to probing the moral soft spots in all journalists' relationships to their subjects, but Morris believes these murders were insufficiently investigated and that MacDonald did not get a fair trial. Many aficionados of the trial find Morris' arguments unconvincing, but that is partly Morris' point. Just like the cops, outside observers settle on a story about what happened and become invested in it. They then ignore or dismiss any evidence that undermines that story, often with a vehemence that increases as the counter-evidence mounts. Certainty, an emotional state all too common today, is less a testament to the merits of a belief than a measure of how much we want to go on believing it.

At the very least, Morris presents a convincing case that an uncertain McGinniss was pushed into endorsing MacDonald's guilt by his publisher because offering a conclusion would make for a more satisfying book. Later, of course, the author had no choice but to double down on that conclusion, and whether or not he believed it before his editor urged him to declare the case solved in his own mind, he seems to have fully believed it in the end. All this would be meat for an interesting consideration of the nature of truth and whether it can ever be meaningfully detached from desire, but as Morris keeps pointing out, when it comes to true crime, real lives and real justice are at stake. Crime fiction can afford to go on telling us what we want to hear, but at its best true crime insists on telling us what we can't afford to forget.

#media #true crime #ethics #errol morris #crime fiction #crime #society #detective fiction #television procedurals #Joe McGinniss

1 note · View note

nitewrighter · 6 years

Note

mannnnn i sort of want more blackwatch gency angst since retribution started. he's just so angery and impatient and so different from recall genji

OOOOOHHHH I had some ideas for this today!!!

—

“…and this is on us. No, obviously this is Overwatch’s responsibility, yes, this is a failure of Overwatch’s character, but this is on us because we gave them this power to begin with. This has happened over and over again through history— You look at Caesar or Andrew Jackson—when a war ends, generals assume power, and we were all too happy to lend our so-called ‘heroes’ power after the Omnic crisis. And look where it’s gotten us.”

Mercy could hear the commentator through the door, her stomach twisting in knots. She took a steadying breath and opened the door to the nearly-empty rec room where a large flatscreen television displayed several news reporters and political commentators seated around a table while images of Blackwatch’s fiasco in Venice were displayed behind them. Genji was alone in the room, cross legged on the couch, red eyes fixed to the screen.

“Commander Reyes’s statement was that they proceeded unsanctioned by Strike Commander Morrison,” another commentator cut in, “It could very well be that a judgment call was made on Reyes’s part and—”

“At best, Reyes proceeding without command from Morrison indicates incompetence on Morrison’s part, but I highly doubt that’s the case…” a third commentator cut in.

“The question we have to ask ourselves now is that is Overwatch protecting the people, or is Overwatch protecting Overwatch?” the first commentator stated, prompting nodding and murmured agreements around the table.

“…Are you sure you want to watch this?” asked Mercy.

Genji’s gaze broke away from the screen only briefly to turn his head and look at her over his shoulder. He turned away and continued watching the screen.

“We should know what the world thinks of us, shouldn’t we?” he asked.

Mercy sighed and tucked her hair back, then took a seat on the couch next to Genji. “Just… you know how the 24 hour news cycle can be–they sensationalize. They’ll say whatever they have to to keep your atten–”

“What really worries me is that the bodies of Talon agents recovered from the mission showed signs of biotic decay,” the second commentator cut in, and Mercy cut herself off and looked at the screen as well.

“Moira,” Mercy’s brow furrowed and the name slipped out of her, a furious simmering growl in her throat. She would have to talk with Jack later.

“This means Overwatch is weaponizing biotics!” the commentator went on, “It’s time Overwatch gives the public full disclosure and tells us exactly what it’s doing in its science division.”

“Stuff like this, apparently,” said the third commentator, hitting a button on their tablet and bringing up a massive picture of Genji on the screen behind them.

“Good god I still can’t get used to that,” said the first commentator.

Dread was pooling in Mercy’s stomach and she looked over at Genji, his arms folded tight around him, the nails of his organic hand digging into the synthetic muscles of his prosthetic arm.

“I think we should turn it off–” Mercy started.

“No,” said Genji.

The image of Genji was half blurred by movement and yet still clearly terrifying. Sword a red slash of color, dripping in blood, red eyes glaring.from behind a mask, loose wires dangling off of him. He was unrecognizable–most of the civilian footage recovered that night was shaky and blurry and that was a saving grace, though it sent the conspiracy theories online spiraling out of control.

“Look, I think we need to remember that in the wake of the Omnic crisis, prosthetics are fairly common-place—” said the second commentator.

“This goes beyond simple prosthetics,” said the first commentator, “This is taking–god, I don’t know how much of that thing is human—and affixing it to a weapon. Overwatch isn’t just weaponizing biotics. It’s weaponizing people. Are these the people we want touting the world’s ideals of peace and progress–”

Mercy grabbed the remote and turned the TV off. Genji showed little reaction.

“They don’t know,” Mercy said stiffly, “They don’t understand.”

“…I think they understand completely,” said Genji standing up.

“Genji–” Mercy started.

“Even if they did know the whole story, what then? I was a killer before I was given this body. My enlistment into Overwatch undermined Japan’s government and law enforcement. Everything about what I am only confirms what they already know.”

Mercy’s mouth was hanging open. She felt like there should be a counter-argument to that, but any words were dying in her throat. Genji’s red eyes were boring into her, somehow both so angry and so numb. Finally he broke his gaze away from her. “I suppose you had a point earlier,” he muttered, “There’s little this news can tell me that I don’t already know.” He turned on his heel and began walking away from her, “If you have need of me, I’ll be in the training facility.”

“You’re not—” she finally blurted out and he stopped and looked over his shoulder at her. “…You’re not just what they say you are.” she said, “You don’t have to be.”

There was a long pause between them. Something had softened in those red eyes, shifting them from numb to questioning before he broke eye contact and faced away from her once again. “What I am is whatever is necessary to destroy the Shimada clan,” he said simply before walking off.

Mercy’s arms tightened around herself as the door shut behind him, leaving her alone.

#gency #overwatch #i be about that decade long slow burn life

185 notes · View notes

fridgelessedard · 2 years

Text

Regarding Covington High and the Protest Mess:

Though we, in the context of American society, have had this story held "on blast" for effectively months following the news breaking on mainstream media outlets like CNN and Fox, and particularly "old" media like the New York Times and The Washington Post, we have not truly been given a collective debriefing on all of the details regarding the story as a whole. This is, invariably due to a key factor that determines the trends of sensationalism in media in the current day: The Profit Motive. Now, I'll begin by essentially dissecting the events as they occurred. Students from Covington Catholic High School gathered in Washinton DC to protest abortions. Meanwhile, there was a Native American-led protest group that was conducting its own protest regarding Native American rights. These groups merely conducted their protests independently from each other, while a third protest group, led by the Black Israelites, was conducting their own protest. As the three groups moved closer in proximity to each other, tensions rose, leading to a back and forth between the Black Israelites and the High Schoolers, including exchanges of slurs and epithets. A number of high schoolers were wearing "Make America Great Again" hats. This was a detail essential to the rollout of subsequent media coverage. The Native American group marched by and as the two groups made exchanges, the Native Americans moved closer, leading to the two groups having a head-on confrontation where Nathan Phillips, a member of the Ohama tribe, walked up to a high schooler named Nick Sandmann while beating a drum and humming. Sandmann and Phillips faced each other while the surrounding crowds of kids and Native Americans began an altercation that soon became swamped in a mass hysteria over news networks for weeks on end. It was an insufferably bloated news story coverage cycle on 24 hour syndicated news networks, with hyperpolitization at an extreme high, but this allows us to study the political spin and virality of sensationalism at an academic level, to understand how different media outlets observe and analyze a story.

With that in mind, let's look at how left-leaning political outlets responded to the story, which originally broke on Twitter. Initial coverage portrayed Sandmann as the aggressor in the confrontation, making note of his appearance; white male, wearing a Make America Great Again Hat with a grin. This carried a certain stigma to the audience of most left leaning outlets, as there is an immense branding association and political subtext to the infamous "MAGA" hat. For left-leaning people at that particular point in time, it was something akin to a symbol of hate and hatespeech. This was subliminally utilized by left-leaning media to capitalize on controversy and provoke discourse, which did work. Right leaning outlets victimized the children, as the MAGA hat carried an inverse triumphance among right leaning individuals at that time. Both outlets made a note of heavily enforcing the hyperfocused climax of Phillips and Sandmann staring each other down. Both outlets made a point of largely ignoring the Black Israelites' involvement in the entire altercation.

At the time, my news media consumption was heavily left-leaning, and upon further exploring the story, I was shocked to find that none of the outlets I read had mentioned that. I didn't even know the Black Israelits existed until my college professor spoke about it in a political science class! This entire story infuriated me at the time and infuriates me now; it felt like an overblown, soap-opera level controversy filled with anger and dissent that was fueled more by resulting discourse, rather than the actual merit of the story itself. To me, it was a shameful point in journalism.

0 notes

foroneandall · 2 years

Note

Anon because I’m shy. I think school shootings happen and will continue to happen so long as we keep putting these shooters in the media for free political unrest. Copycat killers are huge, and now these people know they can “make history” by doing this. It all boils down to outrage making good ratings, and no one giving a shit about the consequences.

Thanks for the shy anon!

Yeah that’s why I feel like it may be about the notoriety. The amount of times these shooter manifestos (I even hate calling it that as if it gives it clout) talk about being the next columbine or school shooter is just crazy. The 24 hour news cycle sensationalizing it can’t help.

But the even sadder thing is these shootings are becoming so common that they aren’t even front page news or notable anymore. Nobody talks about them, you might see a notification but it’s almost background noise at this point. the fact that I’m being desensitized to school shootings is totally unacceptable.

0 notes

teacherintransition · 3 years

Text

The Facebook Dilemma

... not just for the transitioning teacher, but for all of us...

...like most well intentioned possibilities on the internet, it can take a wrong turn.

In 2009, I was 43 and was intrigued by this new “product...service” you could find online called Facebook. There was a lot of buzz about it among friends I knew and my interest was piqued. For a Gen X’er, I had stayed more than just current on computer and internet advancements as I had written a curriculum and taught a course on “How to do Academic Research using the Internet.” A couple of college campuses had approached our school with a dilemma: many high graduates weren’t able to transfer what they knew about hard copy, old school, going through the stacks research to using online resources. I’d taught the class since 2003 and had already been exposed to the burgeoning world of “social media” from my students. Six Degrees, Are You (Hot of Not), Friendster, Xanga, MySpace and several others and all to a 40 something... they seemed too cheesy, too much for the teens and not comfortable for my generation. Then in 2009, I came across this new site called Facebook, silly me... it had loaded its platform and had been online since 2004. It seemed a bit more toned down than the others and I’d discovered that some of my high school classmates were already using it. “What the hell,” let’s give it a shot and I set up my Facebook account ... it seemed harmless.

At first, FB was a blast, I reconnected with friends I hadn’t seen in years, the groups on music and Art were addictive, there were fun games to play... it was an honest online, social media blast and it was user friendly, checking it became part of the daily routine. Like the ancient adage goes, “nothing good can last forever.” Soon, politics, biased news, divisive debate, spying, cheeky algorithms turned what had been a fun pastime into another area for the uniquely American “culture wars.” The same reconnected friendships became casualties on the battlefield, “gotcha” videos were everywhere, Fact-checking was a needed weapon... and it just wasn’t fun. Wishing Happy Birthday or sending sympathy for losses became a cold, mechanical process void of genuine feeling. A friend of ours had said while we were all having dinner that our generation was going to be the experiment subject for this. Generation X was the last one that grew up without wide spread computer usage or without the internet, but had adapted to it much, much better than Boomers. Millennials got exposed to internet and cell phones at the beginning of their teen years and the new guys, “Gen Z” are born with an IP address and a cellular plan. To all too many people I know, social media is more designed to develop angina than friendships.

Social media and a retiring “teacher in transition,” how does it fit during the daily routine of retirement? Well, like most things it’s as varied as the individual in question. My friend who astutely remarked that we were the experiment subjects of this trend had no doubt arrived at a conclusion for those of us who grew up tech free but quickly adopted for work and leisure... I know I have. Using Occam’s Razor in scientific evaluation, I’ve come to the conclusion that life, in general, was better without the pervasive use of technology in our lives. Life lacks a genuine quality and sense of independence during this age of internet everything. I’d rather call a person and wish them happy birthday that use an app; I’d rather spend my time just thinking to myself than have my thinking provided to me via algorithms, I’d rather be more self reliant than have to rely on Siri or Alexa telling when to turn left. C’est la vie... it is what it is, but I am able to put all of this to work for me in specialized ways since I’ve retired. Being able to easily share and post my writing allows me access to an audience that wouldn’t have existed before. These media platforms also grant me a web venue to share and market my Art to a vast online audience which would have been impossible to achieve in previous eras. The internet age also provides a magnificent way to satisfy my travel urges between trips, by being able to virtually visits cities and countries I long to visit and revisit in the interim. We human beings tend to jump into trends whole hog and then after the fact revisit the wise advice of “everything in moderation.” True, true, truer words were ne’er spoken. All this being said, O’ wise teacher in transition, how doth we interact with yon social media upon retirement?

As stated early in this column, this would be the ramblings of a mid fifty retiree finding his way through the challenges of adapting to a new way of living. Some of my “pearls of wisdom” some might find helpful; others, not so much. These observations are mine and not mandatory. I do hope some might find these helpful. Sigh... in regards to Facebook or internet usage in general for the newly retired, I’d suggest limiting it to the smallest degree possible. I envision legions of readers hearing my declaration standing up and crying, “huzzah, huzzah, huzzah” followed by cellphones and iPads being cast in to raging flames followed by the chanting of my name! Ahh, the blessings of a vivid imagination. I suggest this for several reasons, mind you I didn’t suggest total withdrawal, but a moderate to strong decrease in usage. One of the criticisms of Gen Z is their sedentary lifestyle while focusing on texting, gaming, trolling etc etc .... in other words, these young people spend so much time on line they are getting overweight instead of getting out and active IRL ( hipster, techie acronym for In Real Life). If it not a good idea for kids from the ages of 10-25 to sit on their asses all day, it certainly isn’t a good idea for those of us experiencing a mature quality of life (you like that huh? sounds a whole lot better than saying “getting old”). While being online... time can get lost ... and a day waisted and a waistline enlarged. Might I suggest limiting yourself to a few specific times where you check your email, peruse social media, play games ... what have you. I’ve remarked often that a structured day during retirement is a great way to chase your dreams and goals. That doesn’t usually happen sitting on a padded desk chair all day staring at a screen.

I strongly advise that you carefully research the most reliable news organizations based on accuracy and lack of bias and review them periodically during the day. The 24 hour news cycle, breaking reports, obscene bias in news reporting has become a scourge to all areas of society for the last twenty years. It has divided our nation to an unhealthy point amongst all demographics in our country. Inappropriate visuals, doctored photos, deep fake videos and out right deception can really shake up a peaceful mindset. I’m not suggesting abandoning online news at all, but be more discriminating of the sources that don’t sensationalize stories. You’re at a point in life to relax and enjoy peace of mind... make sure you do. Fill your time with what’s in front of you IRL .... not on a screen. Whether we are fifteen to 50 to 80, our time in this world is limited, don’t obsess over things you can’t control; “joie de vie” “la dolce vita” not doom and gloom.

In my mind, try to limit your online time to interests and hobbies that are personally yours. Give your time online a purpose: are you learning the guitar?...then pick some sites that develop that interest. While on Facebook limit your group memberships to interests that enrich you as a person with diverse pursuits. Goof off time is essential to having a peaceful retirement.... but to maintain an active lifestyle, make certain that most of your time has a purpose. No ... not like “working” but determined by the passions of your heart. While there are many ill advised sites on the internet, it was originally intended to enrich us and extend our knowledge. Do it!

“If there is nothing good about Facebook or social media, why do you still use it ...huh?” I’m not implying that it is totally without merit. AsI hoped I tried to state, moderation, the most un American of words is essential to anything we do. I’ll draw this examination to a close by sharing what I think is the most valuable aspect that I derive from Facebook: photographs and the memories option. The daily memories page offered is something I look forward to every morning. It’s is a personal journey through what was on my mind and of interest to me over the years. It takes me back to a moment in time to what I was thinking, feeling and gives me a chance to see how my life has changed over the years. You are afforded the opportunity to see if you’ve grown as a person and what events had enough of an impact for you to post it. It can make joys and sorrows live again momentarily and appreciate the life you have lived. Just remember... living online is not really living. Use these amazing advancements to enhance your life .... not be the direction of it. Just some random thoughts from a teacher in transition.

http://labibliotecacoffee.com/

Facebook Photo; https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7761-facebook-business-guide.html; 2021

0 notes

lmoodydsm · 4 years

Text

Journalism in the Digital Age: How Digital and Social Media Drives Media Narratives

American Journalist Michael Oreskes once said,

“We are the independent observers of the world, who go places our audience can`t go, dig where our audiences can't dig, study and interpret what our audiences do not have time to study and interpret, so that our audiences can better understand the world.“

With this in mind, it provides an argument as to whether journalism’s primary role has lost it’s its traditional narrative in the digital age.

Journalism’s significance in reporting the smallest to the biggest stories of all time cannot be underestimated (Kroll 2015). The digital age however has journalism’s original foundations being challenged on a daily basis due to its 24 hour news cycle, plethora of stories posted, ability remove uploaded stories and running commentary from the public which is changing the framework of journalism (Kroll 2015).

youtube

Lisa DeSisto’s TEDx Talk describes the importance of newspaper journalism in a digital age. She states that digital media has provided opportunities for reaching a wider audience though its approach of who can break the news the soonest and it’s sensationalised nature is eating away a the heart of traditional journalism with “unverified sources, questionable information that is an abundance of poor quality”.

Besides reaching a larger audience, digital media has also provided journalists the ability to source and report stories from all corners of the globe (Price 2015). This has revolutionised ‘on the scene reporting’ or ‘as it happened’ reporting (Price 2015). This form of reporting has become known as blogging, where journalists have the ability to shares news whilst an event unfolds live in front of them (Price 2015). This was not possible prior to digital media with consumers often having to wait until the following days paper or nightly news bulletin (Wahl-Jorgensen 2016).

Though the opportunities have been great for journalism, the threats have also been just as significant. Digital media is threating the validity of journalism. Never has the world questioned so many stories than it has today. And as to why? Because there is so much content, so many voices, so many conflicting reports that are all hurriedly put together to be “The News Breaker” (Kroll 2015). An example of this was when a German flight crashed in the French Alps killing all on board. News circulated almost simultaneously online and before sources were verified, incorrect images of the co-pilot responsible for the crash were splattered all over the internet causing legal action against those who distributed the images (Kroll 2015). Incidents such as these leave traditional journalists who carefully curate their stories clutching at straws as they get caught up in the storm of “fake news”. The media narrative now has become, find a story, post the story. There are still many journalists who work tirelessly to create informative, trustworthy and reliable news, however, the new narrative leaves them playing catch up in a world that craves instant new and sensationalism. (Kroll 2015).

Digital media has forever changed the journalism narrative. It’s provided countless opportunities for growing audiences and news collaboration but it has come at a cost. Journalist will always be questioned for what they write as its only human nature to question everything you read and are told. This has only been magnified however with the inception of digital media due to its 24 hour, breaking news nature. There is no greater time than now for newspaper journalists to bring the readers back to real stories, stories of importance and stories of public interest that require’s a skill in telling, not just a quick, uniformed article posted on Facebook.

References:

Kaiser, J 2015,‘Sharing the News: The Transformation of Journalism in the Digital Age’, kosmosjournal.org, viewed 23 October 2020. https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/sharing-the-news-the-transformation-of-journalism-in-the-digital-age/

Price, G 2015, ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Journalism in the Digital Age: Asian and European Perspectives’, Research Paper, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, August 2015, viewed 23 October 2020. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/20150826JournalismDigitalAgePrice.pdf

Kroll, A 2015, ‘The role of Journalism in the Digital Age Being a superhero or Clark Kent: Do journalists think that Networked Journalism is an appropriate tool to work with (in the future)?’, Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, University of Oxford, viewed 23 October 2020. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/The%2520role%2520of%2520journalism%2520in%2520the%2520Digital%2520Age.pdf

Wahl-Jorgensen K, Williams, A, Sambrook, R, Harris, J, Garcia-Blanco, I, Dencik,L, Cushion, S, Carter, C, Allan, S 2016, ‘The Future of Journalism: Digital Journalism’, 4:7, 809-815, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1199469

0 notes