Words Matter #1
Trolls for Trump, a recent hit on The New Yorker, records Andrew Marantz's attempts to understand the mind of Mike Cernovich, one of the major voices behind the 'Alt-Right', an up-and-coming political movement of "white nationalists, neo-monarchists, masculinists, conspiracists, belligerent nihilists, and social-media trolls."
The 5,000+ behemoth is masterful in painting an image of a man with morals orthogonal to the average american, utilizing hypocrisy, lies, and illogical rhetoric in a self-aware fashion solely to make his voice heard.
Most of the detailing is done without any explicit detailing, but a particularly pleasing contrast is drawn with two separate quotes almost halfway across the piece:
"In March, he tweeted, “Hillary’s face looks like melting candle wax. Imagine what her brain looks like.” Next, he tweeted a picture of Clinton winking, which he interpreted as “a mild stroke.” By August, he was declaring that she had both a seizure disorder and Parkinson’s disease."
"Trump had spent much of the debate sniffling audibly, and I asked Cernovich if he worried about Trump’s health. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they messed with his mike to make it sound like that,” he said."
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Monday, September 26, 2016
News In the Newest Century
Well, maybe not new, but the point remains. What we think of as "news" is almost unrecognizable from 20 years ago. Can we even call it news?
Consider that for thousands of years the only source to learn of recent events were the few yearly travelers. Going from village to village they took it upon themselves to answer the cry for information of the outside world by isolated farmers and craftsmen. When the printing press was popularized and newspapers became commonplace how did the public lament the death of the town crier?
They didn't. Rather than sit back and lament the loss of such a storied tradition, criers quickly became the main method promoting and selling papers.
Why should this modern paradigm shift be any different in execution? Newspapers may soon be relegated to a minor niche market, but they still hold value to our society. Even beyond their total obsolescence they will remain a staple of our history as a civilization. In the meantime proprietary sources of news have moved on to greener pastures, digitization the key to better profits.
As the newspaper fades into obscurity we are better served looking into our future. What awaits us tomorrow morning, 6 months, or years from the present? To make any predictions we need a precedent, staring today.
Today, news is almost instantaneous, and response lagging only seconds behind. Everyone is an editor. You can learn of the latest disasters, miracles, policy changes and still add your two cents before it ends. In a similar vein, everyone is a reporter. Sure, professionals will have high quality equipment and a pre-written script. But without the backing of high information quality and long-developed trust, there is still an appeal to low-quality footage by a bystander 10 feet from whatever made the headlines. It leads us to greater understanding of the world as a complete whole.
But this new age of information leaves us as confused as it does informed. We can catch the New York City bomber 50 hours after his profile was released, but allow a witch hunt of 4 false suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing. Social media is a double-edged sword: A force hundreds of thousands strong, with an almost fanatic zeal to punish a perceived felon any way they can. With so few targets deserving of a life condemned to infamy and shame this crusade is often more harmful than helpful. Without a clear goal this militia dissolves into infighting and flame wars that only help to obfuscate current events.
Consider this alien land of lightning and chrome. Constant, unending news and inconsistent unending sources. Every individual a fount of opinion and cheap-wisdom trying to drown out the rest. Archives of impossibly private information stretching beyond the human ability to understand. Wildfires of false positives crowning on over-educated masses. It sounds ridiculous. Then jump back to 1990. There was a TV, a morning paper. Possibly a couple of tolerable co-workers who can agree with some of your opinions. What basis is there for comparison?
So we are left scrambling to fit the rapidly changing landscape of technology to our worldview. Not worse off for it, but rarely better. The status-quo is in flux, and there is wisdom in the NAA's approach to survival. Ride with the wave, and hope by the end something recognizable remains.
Consider that for thousands of years the only source to learn of recent events were the few yearly travelers. Going from village to village they took it upon themselves to answer the cry for information of the outside world by isolated farmers and craftsmen. When the printing press was popularized and newspapers became commonplace how did the public lament the death of the town crier?
They didn't. Rather than sit back and lament the loss of such a storied tradition, criers quickly became the main method promoting and selling papers.
Why should this modern paradigm shift be any different in execution? Newspapers may soon be relegated to a minor niche market, but they still hold value to our society. Even beyond their total obsolescence they will remain a staple of our history as a civilization. In the meantime proprietary sources of news have moved on to greener pastures, digitization the key to better profits.
As the newspaper fades into obscurity we are better served looking into our future. What awaits us tomorrow morning, 6 months, or years from the present? To make any predictions we need a precedent, staring today.
Today, news is almost instantaneous, and response lagging only seconds behind. Everyone is an editor. You can learn of the latest disasters, miracles, policy changes and still add your two cents before it ends. In a similar vein, everyone is a reporter. Sure, professionals will have high quality equipment and a pre-written script. But without the backing of high information quality and long-developed trust, there is still an appeal to low-quality footage by a bystander 10 feet from whatever made the headlines. It leads us to greater understanding of the world as a complete whole.
But this new age of information leaves us as confused as it does informed. We can catch the New York City bomber 50 hours after his profile was released, but allow a witch hunt of 4 false suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing. Social media is a double-edged sword: A force hundreds of thousands strong, with an almost fanatic zeal to punish a perceived felon any way they can. With so few targets deserving of a life condemned to infamy and shame this crusade is often more harmful than helpful. Without a clear goal this militia dissolves into infighting and flame wars that only help to obfuscate current events.
Consider this alien land of lightning and chrome. Constant, unending news and inconsistent unending sources. Every individual a fount of opinion and cheap-wisdom trying to drown out the rest. Archives of impossibly private information stretching beyond the human ability to understand. Wildfires of false positives crowning on over-educated masses. It sounds ridiculous. Then jump back to 1990. There was a TV, a morning paper. Possibly a couple of tolerable co-workers who can agree with some of your opinions. What basis is there for comparison?
So we are left scrambling to fit the rapidly changing landscape of technology to our worldview. Not worse off for it, but rarely better. The status-quo is in flux, and there is wisdom in the NAA's approach to survival. Ride with the wave, and hope by the end something recognizable remains.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)