Fragmented Media - What Will Come of It ?

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/30/173073/pbs-newsman-sees-danger-in-fragmented.html

BELLINGHAM - A fragmented nation and a fragmented audience for news is making the country more difficult to govern, PBS News Hour co-anchor Jeffrey Brown said during a weekend talk at Western Washington University.

A generation ago, before cable news channels and internet news sources, most people got their news from the same small collection of sources: three major TV networks and a hometown newspaper or two, Brown said. People gathered around their televisions for the assassination of a president, a walk on the moon, and other major events

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/30/173073/pbs-newsman-sees-danger-in-fragmented.html#storylink=cpy

When you consider that television and the 3-channel universe ushered in a generation of conservatism, and that the Balkanized media of the 1930s to the 1960s gave us a period of liberalization of the mainstream, I think that we may see some big political changes from fragmented news.

If you think of crowdsourcing as a phenomenon (look it up if you don't know what it is), the principle is that crowds can make things happen that would be too expensive to fund otherwise... media crowdsourcing will likely end up in a situation where opinions can not be bought or sold as easily.

I know we won't be able to have this discussion without people stating whether this is - obtusely - "good" or "bad" so I will say it's neither, however - I do favour that outcome.

Thoughts ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Thoughts ?

What is the national context here? Or stated another way, what were the "3 - channels" in Canada that led to Trudeau's socialist paradise?

[Michael Hardner]

What is the national context here? Or stated another way, what were the "3 - channels" in Canada that led to Trudeau's socialist paradise?

America leads the western world in Media development, so it is the lab rat for Canada, Aussie, UK and Europe.

[cybercoma]

I think the echo chamber will become people's reference points or their "in-group" and they will still be exposed to other messages; however, those other messages will simply be the "out-group" and summarily dismissed as such. Moreover, the nature of capitalism creates a culture of competitiveness that is adversarial, so we will see a further development of trying to "win" in politics, rather than trying to "solve." I'm hoping for a period of enlightenment where people realize that this cultural development is unsustainable and that we need to work more towards a politics of solution, rather than the politics of winning that seems to be the current climate.

[bush_cheney2004]

America leads the western world in Media development, so it is the lab rat for Canada, Aussie, UK and Europe.

I think your response is that the focus is on the U.S. in this instance, but you dodged the other part of the question. Did Canada have "3 channels" during Trudeau's cultural revolution, or are you including American broadcasters? How do you reconcile the American "lab rat" with futile efforts to stem the flow of American media into Canada (e.g. CRTC)?

[blueblood]

I think the echo chamber will become people's reference points or their "in-group" and they will still be exposed to other messages; however, those other messages will simply be the "out-group" and summarily dismissed as such. Moreover, the nature of capitalism creates a culture of competitiveness that is adversarial, so we will see a further development of trying to "win" in politics, rather than trying to "solve." I'm hoping for a period of enlightenment where people realize that this cultural development is unsustainable and that we need to work more towards a politics of solution, rather than the politics of winning that seems to be the current climate.

Except that winning is a very efficient solution. Right now we have two major thought processes opposite in nature trying to solve problems and improve lives for everybody, however they are polar opposites and have their supporters.

I'd say the competition is the process in which a solution comes about, and the process is continuously ongoing.

[Michael Hardner]

I think your response is that the focus is on the U.S. in this instance, but you dodged the other part of the question. Did Canada have "3 channels" during Trudeau's cultural revolution, or are you including American broadcasters? How do you reconcile the American "lab rat" with futile efforts to stem the flow of American media into Canada (e.g. CRTC)?

We had 2 channels.

The rat doesn't care about what is going on outside his cage - should I continue with the analogy ?

In other words, American doesn't care about Canada and that makes even better conditions for the experiment. We can watch how a 3-channel universe moves to a zillion-channel universe and the effect on the zeitgeist and public forums without worrying whether they're being affected by outside choices.

[bush_cheney2004]

We had 2 channels...

In other words, American doesn't care about Canada and that makes even better conditions for the experiment. We can watch how a 3-channel universe moves to a zillion-channel universe and the effect on the zeitgeist and public forums without worrying whether they're being affected by outside choices.

So we are being asked to ignore the very liberal cultural revolution in Canada with only two "channels" to focus on the growth in American conservatism with three "channels? I am just trying to understand the hypothesis. Perhaps the original premise is flawed.

[Michael Hardner]

Television as a political force was born in 1960, but grew in power after that.

The hippies like Trudeau were discovered via television, but that was just a novelty. Once TV became the centre of attention in the room, and not just a piece of furniture it was used more conventionally for politics.

[bush_cheney2004]

Television as a political force was born in 1960, but grew in power after that.

No, television was a political force at least eight years earlier in the U.S., and augmented existing radio networks owned by the same broadcasters. The first nationally televised political convention was in 1952.

[Michael Hardner]

By that measure Twitter was a 'force' in the 2008 election.

[Bonam]

http://www.mcclatchy...fragmented.html

When you consider that television and the 3-channel universe ushered in a generation of conservatism, and that the Balkanized media of the 1930s to the 1960s gave us a period of liberalization of the mainstream, I think that we may see some big political changes from fragmented news.

I'm not sure that there is any reason to believe that there is a causal link between the "fragmentation" of media and the success of conservative vs liberal politics. I'm also not sure what generation of conservatism the "3-channel universe" corresponds to.

If you think of crowdsourcing as a phenomenon (look it up if you don't know what it is), the principle is that crowds can make things happen that would be too expensive to fund otherwise... media crowdsourcing will likely end up in a situation where opinions can not be bought or sold as easily.

The increased diversity of media types and media sources makes it harder to control information, certainly. Whether that means persuading people to your point of view is any harder remains to be seen. From what I've seen, most people get confused by the overwhelming melange of conflicting information that is presented to them, and tend to filter new information through a screen of confirmation bias more than anything else.

It would certainly be interesting to consider what kinds of media really have the power to change someone's mind on fundamental issues. Modern day televised news is certainly not it.

I know we won't be able to have this discussion without people stating whether this is - obtusely - "good" or "bad" so I will say it's neither, however - I do favour that outcome.

Thoughts ?

The fragmentation of media is just another manifestation of the overall "fragmentation of knowledge" that is occurring as our society grows increasingly more complex and specialized. For example, 200 years ago a single individual could conceivably contain within his own mind the entirety of mankind's useful scientific information and knowledge. Today, a single individual could not hope to learn even 1% of such knowledge, not in their wildest dreams. The society around us and the information within it grows ever more complex and more extensive, while humans still have essentially the same cognitive capabilities they've always had. Different types and sources of media are tailored to appeal to or be comprehensible to individual's with particular pre-existing knowledge, inclination, or life experiences. If one can only know and understand a tiny fraction of the society around them, it is no surprise that their opinions and interpretations of events will be substantially different than someone else whose tiny fraction is comprised of totally different things.

What Will Come of It?

As for what will come of it, it is hard to say. Predictions of the future are always tenuous at best. But I would likely stick with my opinion that it is technological progress that is the dominant factor in reshaping society in modern times, far eclipsing anything else. Based on this, I'm not sure that the continued fragmentation of information is likely to continue very far. If this fragmentation occurs, as I hypothesize above, due to the ratio between what a single individual can know and understand and the total amount of information out there, then this fragmentation will grow as long as that ratio grows. But within the next few decades, we are likely to start to increase our cognitive capabilities (which have until now remained static throughout history) by directly augmenting our brains with computers and nanotechnology. If one's brain can instantly access all the world's information wirelessly through cloud networks with a single thought, and use vast processing power in combination with their organic human intelligence to parse it all and form one's conclusions, that ratio will decrease rather than increasing, and the trend of fragmentation of knowledge will reverse itself.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Bonam

[eyeball]

As for what will come of it, it is hard to say. Predictions of the future are always tenuous at best. But I would likely stick with my opinion that it is technological progress that is the dominant factor in reshaping society in modern times, far eclipsing anything else.

I think the fear of change will loom ever larger myself, at least until the tsunami of conservatism washing over this stupid planet finally breaks. The path to enlightenment will as always, be a painful one.

When you consider that television and the 3-channel universe ushered in a generation of conservatism, and that the Balkanized media of the 1930s to the 1960s gave us a period of liberalization of the mainstream, I think that we may see some big political changes from fragmented news.

I know we won't be able to have this discussion without people stating whether this is - obtusely - "good" or "bad" so I will say it's neither, however - I do favour that outcome.

Thoughts ?

He (Jeffery Brown) acknowledged that the availability of more choices was a good thing, but also noted that the change seems to be part of a far more divided and bitter political atmosphere.

I think the outcome in determining of the goodness or badness of this will hang more on whether it's right or left as opposed to right or wrong and sycophants especially will go ballistic at the thought of too much diversity of thought, form or action encroaching on their beloved Leviathan.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure that there is any reason to believe that there is a causal link between the "fragmentation" of media and the success of conservative vs liberal politics. I'm also not sure what generation of conservatism the "3-channel universe" corresponds to.

Well it's the landscape upon which left battles right. The battle therefore would change, but how is a difficult question to answer.

The increased diversity of media types and media sources makes it harder to control information, certainly. Whether that means persuading people to your point of view is any harder remains to be seen. From what I've seen, most people get confused by the overwhelming melange of conflicting information that is presented to them, and tend to filter new information through a screen of confirmation bias more than anything else.

It would certainly be interesting to consider what kinds of media really have the power to change someone's mind on fundamental issues. Modern day televised news is certainly not it.

What about televised attack ads ? It's pretty hard to say what happens I admit, but peoples' minds do change.

The fragmentation of media is just another manifestation of the overall "fragmentation of knowledge" that is occurring as our society grows increasingly more complex and specialized. For example, 200 years ago a single individual could conceivably contain within his own mind the entirety of mankind's useful scientific information and knowledge. Today, a single individual could not hope to learn even 1% of such knowledge, not in their wildest dreams. The society around us and the information within it grows ever more complex and more extensive, while humans still have essentially the same cognitive capabilities they've always had. Different types and sources of media are tailored to appeal to or be comprehensible to individual's with particular pre-existing knowledge, inclination, or life experiences. If one can only know and understand a tiny fraction of the society around them, it is no surprise that their opinions and interpretations of events will be substantially different than someone else whose tiny fraction is comprised of totally different things.

Very true - however people also argue that computer technology promotes de-specialization, even though computer development itself requires a specialized skill.

As for what will come of it, it is hard to say. Predictions of the future are always tenuous at best. But I would likely stick with my opinion that it is technological progress that is the dominant factor in reshaping society in modern times, far eclipsing anything else. Based on this, I'm not sure that the continued fragmentation of information is likely to continue very far. If this fragmentation occurs, as I hypothesize above, due to the ratio between what a single individual can know and understand and the total amount of information out there, then this fragmentation will grow as long as that ratio grows. But within the next few decades, we are likely to start to increase our cognitive capabilities (which have until now remained static throughout history) by directly augmenting our brains with computers and nanotechnology. If one's brain can instantly access all the world's information wirelessly through cloud networks with a single thought, and use vast processing power in combination with their organic human intelligence to parse it all and form one's conclusions, that ratio will decrease rather than increasing, and the trend of fragmentation of knowledge will reverse itself.

Thanks for posting on this - interesting thoughts.

[TimG]

If one's brain can instantly access all the world's information wirelessly through cloud networks with a single thought, and use vast processing power in combination with their organic human intelligence to parse it all and form one's conclusions, that ratio will decrease rather than increasing, and the trend of fragmentation of knowledge will reverse itself.

I am not convinced the speed of access is the barrier or that increasing our speed of access is going to change much. The real problem is how to index the information available. Google has solved this indexing problem by making inferences based on links but it is far from perfect and the algorithm is regularly exploited. Even if people came up with better indexing mechanisms you will still only be able to view information and associations deemed important by the creators of the index. Edited November 1, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am not convinced the speed of access is the barrier or that increasing our speed of access is going to change much. The real issue problem is how to index the information available.

That issue will solve itself pretty quickly, and with User Experience research is constantly improving. Change is for certain, though - both in our media and in us.

[WWWTT]

Two issues not discussed in the link that I find relevant.

First is the Vietnam war,or how it was covered by the media in the west.(shot heard around the world)

The other is WIKI leaks.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not convinced the speed of access is the barrier or that increasing our speed of access is going to change much. The real issue problem is how to index the information available....

Agreed....as the most important advancements in communications were the telegraph and wireless, because these technologies divorced communications from slower transportation networks (well over 100 years ago). Speed is no longer a blocking limitation, save for commercial exploitation of the medium. Social and political movements have certainly been initiated and succeeded long before Twitter, Facebook, or Google. One could even argue that the Occupy movement was hampered by the very same technology and lack of organic instead of virtual substance/support.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed....as the most important advancements in communications were the telegraph and wireless, because these technologies divorced communications from slower transportation networks (well over 100 years ago).

Telegraph - check.

Don't forget the printing press... don't forget writing and mathematics (developed simultaneously in Mesopotamia)... don't forget speech (yes, that is a technology) and don't forget sex. (Sometimes I just like starting tangential discussions )

Speed is no longer a blocking limitation, save for commercial exploitation of the medium. Social and political movements have certainly been initiated and succeeded long before Twitter, Facebook, or Google. One could even argue that the Occupy movement was hampered by the very same technology and lack of organic instead of virtual substance/support.

Social change has been argued to happen on the backs of technological change.

The printing press is the early ancestor to standardization (and therefore centralization) of communication, and of mechanization which gave birth to the renaissance and then the industrial era, the industrial revolution along with the other kind of revolution, democracy, Marxism... you name it.

Writing and mathematics allowed for the organization of society, which created chiefs who were in charge of massive cities... which evolved into monarchy and religion. All from making some imprints in clay on the riverbank of the Tigris and Euphrates... or so they say...

Speech allowed humans to organize and communicate ideas - allowing them to dominate over other species and master over them.

I just read an interesting piece on the communications of clothing too. Think about it - clothing communicates your status, who you are. Have you ever thought of clothing as an invention ? They did some DNA testing on lice - head lice and clothing lice - and found that they separated as species about 70,000 years ago - which is theorized as the rough timeframe for humans wearing clothing.

++++

I would like to point out: When we discuss such things, while it is a progressive discussion it's a little different than talking about whether Kennedy or Nixon was a better president than Trudeau ( wink to B_C ) since it's pretty much all speculation to the past or future. Nonetheless, it's a fertile topic for agreement, disagreement and more importantly learning.

I just want to note that I put on my 'white hat' to discuss this type of thing, as in 'brainstorming'. It's less of a debate, and correspondingly I'm more willing to speculate or just throw opinions out there for others to shoot down.

[Michael Hardner]

More on the telegraph - it is the ancestor to computers as it was the first speed-of-light information - transferred via electron. The world truly sped up from that point.

[bush_cheney2004]

More on the telegraph - it is the ancestor to computers as it was the first speed-of-light information - transferred via electron. The world truly sped up from that point.

Yes, but I would argue that, technically, the telegraph is the ancestor of multiplexed packet switching communications, not computers per se, which came from other, earlier counting technologies.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but I would argue that, technically, the telegraph is the ancestor of multiplexed packet switching communications, not computers per se, which came from other, earlier counting technologies.

The key differentiator is fast-as-light communications no matter which medium we're talking about.

Steam power was quicker than water power, but electric power was the fastest.

[sharkman]

Birds of a feather flock together whether they be left, right or truthers. Medias are becoming propaganda with the Internet accelerating the trend. Where will it lead to is the question.

Edited November 28, 2012 by sharkman

[eyeball]

Who will follow is probably the more relevant question to pose. Personally I'm seeking greater isolation by eliminating routes that information uses to come into my life. Cable, print news, television, telephone are all pretty much going or gone. If the powers that be succeed in their efforts to take the fun out of the Internet I'll be squelching that out too.

[sharkman]

I remember when I was a kid hearing the old-timers saying that television had caused a great change in society. What people believe, think and do can all be influenced by taking in new data, by way of the TV. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but that it happened.

Now the internet is doing the same thing, albeit in a different way. How will people change because of this thing that so permeates our lives and society? The good, the bad and the unspeakable are now at our finger tips.