Hacker News Reader

Comment by welder | Hacker News Reader

TLDR:

Author states we get sensational news stories, but soon forget them without seeing the big picture. The author proposes we need a new enlightenment of journalism which can report on all sensational stories and how they relate to a currently unknown bigger picture.

QUOTE:

One newspaper editor writing about the loss of the independence of the farmers a hundred years ago summed up the new system:

"The farmers farm the land, and the businessmen farm the farmers."

Maybe today we are being farmed by the new system of power. But we can't see quite how it is happening - and we need a new journalism to explain what is really going on.

REASONS FOR CURRENT SITUATION (according to Author):

* private equity (company flippers)

* giant news orgs focus on nasty sensational stories

* increased inequality (top 1% own all wealth)

* politicians helpless to make real reform

* culture of spying on everyone (PIs, NSA, paranoid husbands, investigative journalists)

* confused population wanting transparency & privacy at same time

View on HN

I like this explanation, which comes from a reddit comment[1]:

"There are two kinds of journalism that get emotional reactions out of us. One has to do with exposing the 'puppet-masters' of society and their stranglehold on the way we live our lives. Clear and sustained reporting of this kind builds public resentment into effective political currents."

"The second is the kind of scandalous, sordid stories of individual misconduct which keep us occupied, but just leave us throwing our hands up wondering 'what is this world coming to?'."

"Curtis is saying that the lines between the two have become dangerously blurred, so that the latest banking scandal is reacted to as though it's a tale of private immorality that we should just shake our heads and tut about, in the same way we might about Miley Cyrus' latest exploits."

"As always, Curtis pulls his interesting trick of exploring and linking the history of the two trends through the lives of individuals, but I agree that can sometimes be confusing. It's definitely worth a read though."

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1s8a8v/what_the_...

I think a lot of the confusion about the article is that Curtis himself doesn't claim to understand what's really going on:

"""Computers, "financial engineering" and credit, social media, algorithms that predict what you want, NSA surveillance, giant new holding corporations called Master Limited Partnerships - all of these surround us and wrap us into a complicated modern web. Some of it is wonderful, other parts of it are threatening - while even more parts are just incomprehensible."""

For him, """It is as if the scandals are part of a giant jigsaw puzzle - and what we are waiting for is someone to come along and click those pieces together to give a clear, big picture of what is happening."""

(Like others, I also found the writing style very unclear, and I'm actually kind-of a fan of his).

What I think Curtis wants us to take from the piece is the suggestion of an overarching connection (possibly even a human-designed one) between these seemingly unconnected, aforementioned aspects of our lives.

The guiding theme for the article seems to be the effort to "... find an oblique angle that offers a bit more perspective" - the life of Tamara Mellon, her father, and great-uncle of her husband, affected by aspects of current finance practices, (the alleged precursor to) social media and/or surveillance, and corporations.

If I may add my personal opinion on this interpretation of Curtis' views: Nothing new here. Orwell and Huxley already warned us from the dangers of rising mass-surveillance and huge power structures, while people are kept docile with "Light Entertainment". I don't think there's anything more described in the article, but what a fascinating description it is.

There is something new here, Orwell and Huxley dont cut it.

This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with, (in my reading) Orwell explains power very well and how oppressive regimes control and guide our very lives, Huxley is about the same but from a different angle - instead of active oppression by more carrots in the form of entertainment.

But where is this apathy coming from when facts are thrown in our faces about the misuse and abuse of democracy - in Orwells world it would be like an actor taking over the TVs and announcing even in double-speak so it cant be misread "You can make a change, its not all real, the power the state has depends only on YOU and YOU can take it right now, stop it all!" and the same for Huxley. The message is clear, we dont have to be oppressed - in fact the powers area afraid of us, we are masters of our own faith.

That has happened, and yet nobody seems to give a shit. Its like neither Orwell nor Huxleys methods were really needed to drive society in certain directions. Its like the common people dont want to be in charge of their own lives, like we have nothing to live for, nothing to stand up for, nothing to accomplish.

Then the question we now have then, what is it that would make us do things, what is capable of driving and changing society? What would the common man/woman in 2013 step up and stand for? Thats the piece that is missing.

For me, Huxley hews much closer to reality - First Worlders are generally too comfortable, too preoccupied with the minutiae of getting on to really be fundamentally shaken by these ongoing revelations.

"An army marches on its stomachs" comes to mind here - it will take many more people feeling a much more literal pinch before the tide rises enough to buoy dissent past this nascent malaise. 20-30 years from now, with automation having rendered entire classes of workers obsolete, with the resultant gains having been gobbled by the same actors who have dominated global commerce these last 30+ years - I think we'll find then what the end game really looks like. I doubt very much it will be appetizing to 99.999% of us.

In my reading, Huxley depicts a society too sated and distracted to criticize the power structures they live in. The oppression is not one of force and fear, as in Orwell, but is equally demoralizing and incapacitating. Maybe even more incapacitating: in Orwell, Smith's resistance wells up from within; in Huxley, the introduction of an alien from another world is required to throw things into relief. In this sense, Curtis may be describing sort of a synthesis of the Orwellian and Huxleyan views, built on the mass media stupefaction of the populace to glamorize the roll out the surveillance state.

Maybe the internet is our version of that "alien"?

Maybe before it was aquihired.

> This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with.

I think this might be the other side of the "global politically-motivated violence is decreasing near-monotonically viewed over centuries" trend.

Whoever could imagine a world power trying to engage in empire-building, in 2013? Governments just aren't scary, any longer, in that fundamental sense. And so their dual, revolutions, are also becoming increasingly rare.

>Whoever could imagine a world power trying to engage in empire-building, in 2013? Governments just aren't scary, any longer, in that fundamental sense.

why would you need a formal empire if you can make governments in different countries do your bidding? Any empire of the past had local governors/governments who would manage the daily routine of keeping flock in check and sewer flow. And current governments, especially in Western world, are doing it pretty effectively.

>And so their dual, revolutions, are also becoming increasingly rare.

people make revolution when they hit the wire and other means don't cut anymore. So if one manage to keep the population even just a small distance from the "wire", by providing minimal employment (or more precisely enough "bread and circuses"), policing without too much abuse, etc... - no revolution. Many countries have reached or coming close to this optimum, while some (i.e. Arabian Spring) hasn't mastered it yet.

I think the apathy comes from a dearth of alternatives. People see that the current system is corrupt, but nobody can think of a better idea. There is a pervasive and not wholly unjustified sense that all political ideologies have failed.

For a long time libertarianism and its relatives seemed like the last idealism standing, but there is now an increasing sense of cynicism toward those ideas as well since it's clear that economic liberty just means the top 0.1% capture 99% of everything due to self-reinforcing network effects in markets.

I can speak for myself. I would very much like to change structures and reduce the power of the state. Sometimes I feel very motivated.

On the other hand, I have been struggling for years with health problems and just in general to get by financially. I suspect that I may not be alone in that.

I always think that if I become independently wealthy, then I might be able to take political action. I would have resources to release technologies that could make a difference, or to run media campaigns. And I would be able to pay lawyers.

But as it is, besides clicking on a few petitions online or some such, I don't feel like I am able to take political action. I don't have the energy for it. And to be honest, I don't know what I would do. I do not believe that voting or making efforts inside of the current system will make a significant difference. I get the impression that we need to do some experimentation with some fairly radical changes to ordinary societal structures. And those types of changes, I don't even mention specifics anymore because they are rejected immediately or not understood.

I think that we need improved belief systems and structures, rather than incremental modification or adjustments. People aren't buying those types of ideas though. So it seems like everyone is too stupid or conservative to recognize and support ideas that are radical enough to make a difference. But like I said, I don't even present those ideas anymore, because I don't have the resources to try them, and no one is listening, and there is no point in presenting an idea just to have everyone shit on it.

Go on, I'm interested. What kind of changes do you have in mind?

> what is it that would make us do things, what is capable of driving and changing society?

The same thing that it has always been. There is nothing new here.

If you look at the populist changes to society throughout history, they are fixing problems that are literally unimaginable to modern western sensibilities.

For example, the average age upon death of a working class Londoner in the 1780s was 19. [0] Can we even imagine that? People, in huge numbers, dropping off at 19? So that's how we got labor laws.

Consider the civil rights movement. It's tempting to blur this with today's racial "tensions", but back then there were cities that would post signs threatening to shoot blacks on sight. This was common enough that there's probably one within an hour's drive of where you are right now [1].

In 1932, the year that the Nazis came to power, German unemployment was over 30% [2]. That is basically unimaginable for most countries today, and those that are in this ballpark have exactly the sort of unrest (e.g. Greece, Spain) that probably leads to social change. It's certainly way different than anything you see in the US.

The thing is, NSA spying or whatever don't really rate a mention next to any of these. Sure, it is a violation of your rights but people don't rise up for "on paper" sorts of causes.

It is easy for HN and the educated leisure class to paint everybody as "apathetic" or whatever. But out in the real world, 58% of Americans spend at least one year below the poverty line [3]. People aren't worrying about the Orwellian society because they're worrying instead about how to pay for Christmas presents for the kids.

If you really want the masses to care about whatever HN's issue of the day is, the first step is to figure out how to get the masses into the educated leisure class so that they have time to care.

[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/02/orph-f20.html

[1] http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/content.php?file=sundowntow...

[2] http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-nazi-rise-to-po...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

This is it really. Who doesn't have a car that wants one? Who doesn't have a tv? Who doesn't have the Internet? Who doesn't live to a good age? And moreso in europe: who doesn't have free health care? Who doesn't get a living allowance and shelter when they're out of work? Who can't afford to fly and stay in other countries(£20 flights if you're not picky). Hell, you've even got a country debating whether or not to give every citizen a salary, for free!

The fact is that the poorest people have things that kings couldn't have a 100 years ago. You're going to have a hard time persuading people to rise up under these conditions. And really, why should they?

It's a pity the author can't start a part of this revolution by writing more clearly.

I spent about 5 minutes reading before becoming completely lost and confused - was there a central thesis and was he ever going to get to a point substantiating it, or was I just reading somebody's fantasy about an old era glamour girl using journalism as a weak front story?

I wasn't convinced he'd have the clarity of thought to put a coherent big picture together and gave up reading, coming here instead to see if somebody had managed to decipher it all. (That being said I think he has a point and it's something I've wondered about myself.)

>It's a pity the author can't start a part of this revolution by writing more clearly.

By clearly you mean writing short articles that you can finish in five minutes? Adam Curtis always builds his stories with historical events to conclude with a point which is relevant today. You need to be patient to appreciate some of his stuff.

Roughly 70% of the things I read on the internet are worthless reads, but I don't realize it until maybe about a third of the way through. I put up with it because the other 30% is typically pretty good at capturing my attention.

Except, when the majority of things I read are crap (and honestly, a post littered with videos typically is) I tend to come at articles with a "prove I should finish reading you" kind of attitude.

The beginning of this post wasn't very successful at capturing my attention. It would seem he has a very similar style as Venkat (though I think Venkat is a better writer) from RibbonFarm. I guess the difference is I have a general expectation that I realize he's building up to something bigger... and that conclusion might even be 3 or 4 posts from this long post. However he's earned my patience.

  prove I should finish reading you

Maybe you can persist with reading through an article when you see it being very popular on Hacker News?

When I saw people "raving" about it, I did end up going back and reading the rest...

I rather liked the way that he built up his "hook" to lead the reader on, deeper into the piece. I thought it was quite clever, and I enjoyed reading it.

OTOH I enjoy reading Malcolm Gladwell, and he's been shown to be kind of wrong about most stuff.

Until he started talking about the history of the Yeardye family. One long digression about some specific people I have no previous reason to care about is tolerable. When he went back to them I decided to drop the article and just read comments, because the gossip/substance ratio was clearly too high.

With no disrespect to you, this is sadly the state of us hyper-readers today. We expect straight and to-the-point prose, piddly word counts and a literal/predictable assortment of ideas. And when the occasional author decides to venture outside this straitjacket, we wonder what's wrong with him/her.

Let's not forget that writing is still (I don't know how long it will remain) a creative art. And though the vast majority of it has been reduced to algorithmic, LCM commodities, surely we can allow a few artists to tell their stories the way they want to?

While this may be a part of the explanation, I don't think it's solely responsible. It's the responsibility of the writer to set up the reader with an understanding of the point of what they are reading (i.e. "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them"). If you're going to make a long digression, it's respectful (and less counter-intuitive) to at least give the reader an inkling as to why you might be doing such a thing. Between the random cat video, the shoe photo that looks like it was nabbed from google images, and the sudden jump back to the story of Mellon's father, I genuinely started questioning the quality of what I was reading and whether I should be wasting my time.

I thought I'd somehow managed to switch tabs and had to scroll back to the top to confirm that I hadn't.

(i.e. "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them")

That's what many subscribe to. There are schools of thought that disagree. Some readers enjoy not knowing where the text is going; done well, it makes the payoff significantly more pleasurable.

What you said certainly does seem to be the fashion at the moment; the number of books whose first chapter is simply a dull forewarning of what each of the following chapters is going to be about certainly seems to have increased in recent years. I find it horrifically dull and generally skip that entirely. I see the same thing in presentations; it's just as dull (to me).

It's not exactly uncommon for a narrative to suddenly jump to a seemingly unrelated scene, only for the threads to weave themselves back together by the end. It's a standard literary trope. Fair enough, it is often a feature of bad writing. You should probably read this article though.

His recent post about syria was excellent as well, and more concrete than this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the...

I actually ended up going back and reading it and found it fascinating.

If I want writing-as-an-art I'll read Thomas Pynchon. I don't want it in an editorial.

No, I have to agree with the parent, it was overly verbose with no up front defined and consistent thesis or hypothesis. It's hard to read what feels like the meanderings of the authors mind when the central thesis that you thought you were reading about gets quickly diverted.

I know that a lot of people shy away from large pages of print, but the imagery and format of this article is pretty inconsistent.

That said, after reading it all, I think I agree with the author but it's hard to tell.

Absolutely. He leaps from topic to topic, often with a weak link between each one.

For example:

"A hundred years ago, at a time very like ours, a small group of journalists did just that. And the person who takes you back to that time is Tamara Mellon's ex-husband - Matthew Mellon."

"At the end of the 19th century, Matthew Mellon's great great uncle - Andrew Mellon - was one of the most powerful and richest men in the world. He was part of a small group of bankers and industrialists who not only dominated America - but were using the power of money to undermine, corrupt and control politicians, judges and the whole system of democracy."

He goes from talking about hacking, spying and intrusive tabloid journalism in the modern era to the turn of the century Robber Barons, and the only link is a coincidental blood relationship between the characters that he flits between.

I feel the author has something important to say, even if it's difficult to grasp exactly what it is. He would perhaps benefit from splitting the article into several pieces (surprising to say, as so many online publications abuse this in order to artificially drive page views) in order to focus on one topic at a time, and then bringing the narrative together at the end.

"This is a website expressing my personal views – through a selection of opinionated observations and arguments."

It's Adam Curtis. This is what he does.

Exactly. I can sort of see what the parent comments mean, but having read and watched a lot of Adam's work I was able to follow along perfectly. Even read it in his voice.

His segues weren't all perfectly relevant this time, but it's just his style.

I've encountered the use of this narrative technique before, using loose and wholly inconsequential connections to link together the points of a logical argument. I'm not sure where it originated but it's defiantly more popular in GB than the US. The late 70s BBC series Connections with James Burke used this narrative technique for all of its episodes.

i appreciated the narrative as a creative work and information piece. the weaving of stories was masterful and when things began harmonizing it was neat. however, this also lends itself to more of an entertainment piece which left me with some dissonance. it's structured as an entertainment journalistic piece that questions the utility/efficacy of entertainment journalism. to me then, its structure does not necessarily lend itself to a call to action as was intimated in its closing third.

> We expect straight and to-the-point prose, piddly word counts and a literal/predictable assortment of ideas.

Personally, I disagree with all three items. This isn't the first time I've seen a text delay its thesis until the end. Yet none of them imparted the sense of utter bewilderment that this article has. I doubt word count is an issue since I read plenty of books. It's not as if all I read is buzzfeed, cracked, and HN. As for ideas, I don't know how this is relevant. HN's primary criticism is directed towards the presentation, not the underlying ideas. I do think Curtis has an interesting idea, but I still think the presentation was trash.

> writing is still a creative art. (...) surely we can allow a few artists to tell their stories the way they want to?

"Creating noise" is surely appropriate for sports stadiums, but probably not for journalism. This text is clearly explanatory. It's not a novel, it's not a poem, it's an article. Its purpose is to inform.

This goal is accomplished effectively most often by building a hierarchy of abstraction. The thesis is often a single abstract opinion/judgement supported by tangibles such as examples, anecdotes, statistics, etc. Paragraphs organize text so that tangibles support a minithesis, which often supports a main thesis, which sometimes supports a chapter in a book.

The author didn't take the normal route, but did he accomplish his goal of "informing the reader" effectively? I think his paragraphs were too short to organize his ideas meaningfully. And even if his paragraphs were longer, I would have preferred that Curtis group the paragraphs into "chapters" so I could mentally index each segment for the conclusion. In short, I think he failed his goal spectacularly.

I think probably you need the context: Adam Curtis usually makes multi-part documentaries that span several hours, so his blogs have a pretty serious load on the old attention-span. That said, I've never yet been disappointed by the way he puts them together. He's very much a storyteller, but at the same time as he admits to weaving in his own opinions, he does at least do his dues as regards research. Some of the archive material he unearths is unbelievable, I swear he must just live on a camp bed in the BBC archive.

my only gripe with the article is the meaningless title (if you are going for the cool title, at least add a descriptive subtitle) and the videos are now too standards compliant.

If you look through his other blog articles, it's something of a theme with him.

That said: I've encountered a number of otherwise good journos who can't write a headline to save their life. And many more who can't write a decent lede.

This is probably the central issue:

  I wasn't convinved he'd have the clarity of thought to put
  a coherent big picture together and gave up reading...

I found the style very entertaining, I thought the video clips were relevant and interesting as well. I think the big difference is that I decided to trust the author and take for granted that it would all make sense by the end.

I also had as much time as I wanted to read the piece, if I was more pressed for time I may have had to abandon it as well. I think it's unfair to accuse people who distrust the author as having some sort of attention problem. Perhaps they have another heuristic for deciding if a longer article is worth it and this one simply didn't meet those requirements.

One of the things I appreciated about the piece was that the intro is a bit scattered. You kind of wonder where Alan's going with it, then it comes together. The build as the piece develops is pretty intense.

Perhaps it's a parody?

Compare to something like this:

http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2009/06/the-best-spinach-...

We've all seen and suffered through these, and the Upworthy/Buzzfeed crapstylebook dictates that the thesis be held out as long as possible.

"* politicians helpless to make real reform"

s/helpless/not interested/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com