Same goes for certain writers books. They are getting paid to write books and then pick something that sells and paint a narrative. And then people think this is true, wholly true or useful whereas it may not.
So sad, so scary.
Same goes for certain writers books. They are getting paid to write books and then pick something that sells and paint a narrative. And then people think this is true, wholly true or useful whereas it may not.
So sad, so scary.
There is always a message and the line between fiction and nonfiction isn't always clear. Who is making the media and why, who did the research, who funded the project, etc.
What's sad and scary is that media literacy and critical thinking isn't a top priority for teaching in schools.
In the current era, I think we've lost confidence and taste for balanced narratives, neutral depictions and such. Journalism is storytelling. Every headline, choice of picture or example is a narrative selection made by an author. Objectivity is a delusion, best discarded.
That "postmodern" take might be true. It's hard to argue against, honestly. That said, untruths can and do play a role. There's a difference between a world where objectivity is a sham and one where objectivity is not even a sham.
Either way, It's hard to go back. Documentaries and books today are making an argument, not depicting one neutrally... They're not even pretending to. That may make the endeavour more honest, depending on your POV. Regardless, no one owes the whole truth anymore and no one expects it. It's up to you to synthesize yourself a makeshift whole.
Accounting for that so much misinformation, propaganda and opinions have been published in the media even back then, the outrage that "these days" things are worse feels a bit short-sighted.
I'm talking about the way we even structure the question today. There's no expectation of neutrality, and trying to appear neutral will seem like hypocrisy. If you buy a book on an intellectual topic, you expect to get one half of an argument, not the whole.
Probably because the notion that we've ever had "balanced narratives, neutral depictions and such" is a bald-faced lie, per, "Negro lynched for assaulting white woman," et al.
The media landscape has balkanized enough that attempting to declare A Single Truth from on high (however fact-based, or not, it actually was) is no longer possible. To those constantly thrown under the steamroller of Stability and Civility, this is a good thing. At this point, people have to choose between convenience or truthz because a convenient truth is unattainable.
There is literally nothing (except defamation/libel laws, which is why all the characters are invented) that says any story presented as true by a publisher has to actually be true. There is no penalty for lying, or presenting a fictional story as true.
Any expectation that anything a publisher produces is even vaguely related to actual events is based on a now-outdated set of principles in journalism that are no longer followed.
my issue with his narrative and he doesnt really offer any viable alternatives execept suggesting government regulation (which is usually responsible for whatever situation he's ranting about in the first place)