In Praise of Print: Reading Is Essential in an Era of Epistemological Collapse

No ulterior motive? I really don't know about that.

They're better than most, because they generally tell the truth - a shockingly low bar - but it's a specific type of truth, as seen from a specific and very narrow window, from a deliberate vantage point.

Always viewing the world from that specific window belies a motive, conscious or not, to maintain a highly destructive status quo. They are not seeing the forest for the trees, while writing factual and detailed reports on the least consequential tree bark facts.

Which is fine, if tree bark facts are your bag, I guess - but I'm more concerned about the rapidly deteriorating forest.

I can experience the disconnection same while 'digital' reading on my e-reader in a cozy chair in the middle of nowhere, with much less RSI and eye strain.

Magazines, newspapers, short stories and other short-form written paper works pre-digital age are as guilty (or not guilty) of changing the consumption experience the author attempts to pin on 'digital'.

When it comes to the cultural impact of what we consume, there is I think a quantity vs quality argument that can be made with the introduction of digital and the lowering of barriers. There is also a counter argument that 'quality' was subjectively gate-kept by small groups that colour and bias the narrative intentionally and unintentionally. The weighing of these two arguments seems to come down to personal views on culture and media and I find its often a grey area for many.

Its probably more useful to distinguish between foreign educated vs born here.

Interestingly the last stats I remember seeing about ESL students is they tend to out-perform english students in a number of subjects depending on the age group, so factoring them out might lower the overall stats and show an even worse trend among native born english speaking American students.

IMO, the entire problem comes from this one lie. But you see... a lot of people wants this propaganda machine.

Also, nowadays you can stream deep journalism that people can adjust to their time availability. We usually call those "documentaries". Most of the stuff that carries that name is psychotic garbage too, but informative ones do exist.

Lets assume all people when given the opportunity will do what is in their own best interests first.

The less power you have, the more working with others is in your own best interest.

The more wealth you have, the more power you have and the less you _need_ to work with others to achieve what you want or need, so you have an increased ability to weigh what is best for you vs what is best for everyone.

At some point the wealth/power split is so much that you can effectively stop caring about what everyone else wants and pursue what you want and what benefits you.

So while they may have better information, they aren't incentivized to decisions that are less harmful to everyone.

> Starting proxy wars, fueling climate doubt, lobbying/destroying governments to allow every kind of degradation of every commons. Paying people 6 or 7 figures to confuse and divide the people earning 5 or 6 figures. Apparently utterly ignorant of their legacy, which will be one of murderous self-interest and absurd delusion.

All of those can be leveraged for profit if one is cynical and self-serving enough. Most of 'them' that fall into these categories know to some degree the actions they take are harmful to others, and frankly they don't care. Either in their own self-interest, or deluded interests of whatever group they identify with.