131–140 of 180 posts
Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is not the end of the world. Journalism was corrupted by sensationalism as soon as it moved from subscriptions to ads, which in the US was in the 19th century. Remember when we discovered a colony of aliens on the moon? Yeah, that was the New York Sun way before…
Reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1227/
Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is not the end of the world. Journalism was corrupted by sensationalism as soon as it moved from subscriptions to ads, which in the US was in the 19th century. Remember when we discovered a colony of aliens on the moon? Yeah, that was the New York Sun way before…
http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/gell-mann-amnesia-effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
represent criticisms of the seriousness or competence of journalism, in various cases going back somewhere between decades and centuries. We should probably not think that there was ever a golden age in which all journalism was sober, cautious, and informed. But it also seems like the pressures facing journalism that Maciej points to are quite real.
How can we get a better historical perspective on how well different kinds of journalism have worked over time? (I guess a similar problem confronts anyone who wants to criticize -- or try to redeem -- institutions that seem to be in decline.)
Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is not the end of the world. Journalism was corrupted by sensationalism as soon as it moved from subscriptions to ads, which in the US was in the 19th century. Remember when we discovered a colony of aliens on the moon? Yeah, that was the New York Sun way before…
Also, I don't actually "remember" the Spanish-American war. I understand what you mean, but this is an awkward way to put it.
Wait, so will Amazon ship magnesium, iron oxide, and aluminum powder all in the same box? That sounds kinda scary to my layperson ears.
It's actually a bugger to get the stuff to ignite.
You have to stick a length of magnesium ribbon into the mixture, and I'd usually make a little well of magnesium powder that this would feed into. Then I'd use a Bunsen burner to ignite the ribbon, as often my lighter wasn't hot enough to ignite the ribbon unless I'd sandpapered the ribbon first to remove the oxide layer.
Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…
Sorry, but I have no faith in Google as a fact checking organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this correction. Do you know whether Al + Fe2O3 thermite as normally prepared (meaning, not ground up into nanoparticles) will detonate? I'll update the piece accordingly. Moreover, are you sure this was a detonation (shock wave) rather than a deflagration?
From a practical point of view, the only semi-common thermites that can actually explode are copper and silver. However, these thermites do not "detonate" as in the definition. They merely deflagrate extremely quickly, quickly enough to fool an observer but not in the true physical sense.
I carried out two rounds of thermite "experiments", both times using oxides of iron, manganese, and copper. I witnessed two "explosions" (I now presume deflagrations) and they occurred with the copper oxide. I've occasionally wondered if that was a coincidence that it was the same metal that "exploded" both times. Mystery solved: apparently not!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the context, this proposal was made by this journal director to JL Mélenchon, the far-left candidate in the election (who got 19% of votes, i.e. not a marginal) hoping it would be included in his political program. It is a well-thought proposal by someone who knows the press industry well. It of course has leftist bias but I suspect that while there can be political criticism, it is probably pretty solid. I don't…
For context on "far-left" - it's nothing like the far left in the US. France has an extremely well-developed set of leftists. It's the only country I ever visited where people had deep discussions about the difference between Trotskyism and Leninism when debating actual political events. The US far left would maybe, possibly, pass as moderate left in France. Obama would be considered... center right? OK, centrist. Th…
There are a lot of interesting intellectual discussion on the far-left here. A good amount of crackpots and conspiracy theorists too, but historically France has always been a crucible for leftist ideologies. On the other hand, there is a certain anti-technologism, a brand of eco-conservatism that seem to be less common in the US.
I use "far-left" to describe FI concisely but I am of the opinion that this is a misnomer. For me, far-left means communist and means collectivization of the means of productions. Only Force Ouvrière and the NPA propose that in France (and together they make 3%) Mélenchon is a more classic left-wing, just a bit more radical than Hollande but maybe less than Mitterand.
Yes, Obama would be considered centrist or right-wing moderate but French politics, like US politics, did shift right in the last decade. Many people compare Macron to Obama. People like me, who are pretty on the left, consider both to be center or right-center but many media put Macron on the left here.
It is muddied by the fact that he (like Obama actually) was vague enough on his campaign promises to not know who he will side with on issues that oppose employees and employers.
> These ideas will not easily translate into a US political context :)
It would be interesting to try though. Here the speaker talks to someone who does not mind leftist ideas but it would be doable to say the same things using a more libertarian mindset. After all, people like Alex Jones would probably be empowered by these too. If you have a leftist audience, focus on the independence from shareholders, if you have a right-wing audience, focus on the independence from government. If you have a conspiracy alt-right audience, wink implying that you get independence from the jews/reptilians/globalists that control the big media companies.
Semantic-field translation is a very useful exercise that the left must master :-)
This is a good piece but I have one nit: it is incorrect to say "thermite [...] will not detonate." I was shocked to discover this first hand some years ago: http://olivernash.org/2009/11/12/fun-with-thermite/index.htm... I can still recall the echoing boom of that (copper) thermite.
Thank you for this correction. Do you know whether Al + Fe2O3 thermite as normally prepared (meaning, not ground up into nanoparticles) will detonate? I'll update the piece accordingly. Moreover, are you sure this was a detonation (shock wave) rather than a deflagration?
From the clarifying comments below it seems likely it was a deflagration but I confess I've been using the words "explosion", "detonation" rather sloppily to mean "flash and boom" till now.
Thanks again for a marvelous article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a proposal to kill entertainment media, it is a proposal to make it easier to make informative journalism. The theory being that a plurality of information sources leads to a better informed population and that if newspapers have less to worry about satisfying shareholders or advertisers, they will do a better job. I think that the most important point for the US situation is the non-concentration condition…
> IMO, the fact that so many Americans confuse information and entertainment is an education problem, not a media one. Then there's the Tesla vs. Top Gear case. Top Gear spewed bullshit about Tesla's car, got sued, and won, with the court saying that Top Gear is an entertainment show and has no obligation to be factually accurate. And yet, it's widely known that people treat this show as an information source, not a…
> it's widely known that people treat this show as an information source, not a comedy.
It would have helped Tesla to be able to point out that Top Gear is not real journalism but entertainment and point at the actual reviews made by actual journalists.
> And then there's British Tabloids vs. EU case
I don't know how it happens in other countries but most of the time when a French news quote a UK tabloid it is mostly to point fingers at them and laugh.
> I think this is not an American problem, and not people problem.
Sure, it is a people problem. That US has and makes less efforts than other countries at solving. I mean, EU is not perfect, but there are not many countries where the biggest political party downright opposes teaching critical thinking skills in schools:
page 20 (12) of this document: http://archive.is/QbV60