News:

PD.com: Trimming your hair in accordance with the anarchoprimitivist lifestyle

Main Menu

Mediagasm

Started by The Good Reverend Roger, September 03, 2009, 01:48:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: fictionpuss on September 04, 2009, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
I was getting in my quota of dumb.   :sad:
And mocking people who are genuinely trying to contribute to your project idea because they think it rocks is smart?

That's not how you came off, FP.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Captain Utopia

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 04, 2009, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
I was getting in my quota of dumb.   :sad:
And mocking people who are genuinely trying to contribute to your project idea because they think it rocks is smart?

That's not how you came off, FP.
I find that baffling, but I guess I can't argue with consensus. Sorry for that then. Thread-jack over.

Cain

The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it.  And, given the current media climate, that is hard.  Very hard indeed.  I've followed media analysts (professional and amateur) who have tracked stories from the tabloids over here for years.  And the problem is they can veer well into David Icke territory and still not get called on their bullshit.

Some examples of media stupidity in the UK, for example: http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com/, http://5cc.blogspot.com/ and http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/.  Take a long time, and check out the archives.  If we want to push the media to a point of diminishing returns, we have to know where the limits of debate currently stand.

(Also, its worth considering that, in this online, networked world we now live in, controversy and and outrage may be more important than factual reporting.  Ann Coulter's latest bout of Tourettes will get more coverage than the Baltimore Sun's indictments of the human costs of the drug war in the city.  In short, making something crazy might just play into their hands, as it generates unique visitors and advertising revenue.  Another angle could be the generation of a story that is entirely without importance or content.  Not afactual, but utterly meaningless yet beautifully crafted, like an except of postmodernist text.  On the appearance, it seems like actual reporting, but as you look at it again, the lack of meaning becomes more and more obvious.  It would have to be done using buzzwords and article structures actual papers use....but its worth exploring).

Triple Zero

(Cain already posted part of my points while I wrote this, but I'll post it anyway cause I think it still adds to the discussion)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on September 03, 2009, 08:45:04 PM
I like this idea and think it can definitely be developed into something... must ponder it.

That's what's driving me nuts...this is the diseased underbelly of the beast.  We have to be able to think of SOMETHING.

The issue seems to be, that for some reason, simply being DUMB AS FUCK isn't really considered to be a failure anymore [by the general populace], possibly "since everybody is doing it".

:horrormirth:

So maybe, we should focus on re-education on this point? It sounds really stupid, but an elementary school level [online] pamphlet/flyer, with big letters and iconic pictures explaining "WHY BEING DUMB IS BAD", slowly and meticulously explaining why the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" is intended to be cynical and not a good thing. Not using the exact phrase of course, as "Ignorance" probably has too many syllables and they will confuse "bliss" for a shampoo brand or something.

Maybe using: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_English_ordered_wordlist



Or perhaps as Growth Spurt (who?!) suggested, pranking the media is a good angle. But it has to be something that showcases the media's dumb, as well as showing the dumb caused a bad thing.

Showing the media's dumb can be done by spinning an obviously retarded story that will be picked up by mainstream media in a way of which later can be said "those fuckers will publish anything". A bit harder would be to make it painfully obvious that this is a bad thing, in a really pound and drive the point home sense. Something that will not just make the media that picked it up lose its face (cause they publish false shit all the time and nobody cares even if it's exposed--edit: what Cain said), but something that makes a lot of (non media) people waste a lot of time, or feel uncomfortable, just because this media published it.

Also, it needs to be free of any liberal or conservative bias (or any of the other typical two-man divide-and-cons), because otherwise the people that identify with the opposing bias will just point at their opponents. It needs to affect the christian, the gun-nut, the metropolitan, the black, the white, the businessman and the hipster student alike.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it.  And, given the current media climate, that is hard.  Very hard indeed. 

The only time I've seen that in recent memory was that twit on Fox, you know, with the "terrorist fist bump" thing.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cramulus

idea: provide the tools and information for people to create their own media hoaxes

when people see how the media really works (even if only in theory), they'll realize how dumb the process is.

   >make up a contraversial topic. pull some "soundbites" from "authorities"
   >write a press kit which does all the work for the journalist
   >send in stuff close to deadline so editors don't have time to research
   >when your stuff makes the news, clip it out and include the clippings in your second-pass press kit
   >the journalists see the clipping, they'll assume they don't have to do any fact checking because someone else already did.

imagine if the media reported on the high number of fake news stories
how would they cover their own process and people's perception of it?

classic double-bind

rong

could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other? 

-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved
"a real smart feller, he felt smart"

Cain

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2009, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it.  And, given the current media climate, that is hard.  Very hard indeed. 

The only time I've seen that in recent memory was that twit on Fox, you know, with the "terrorist fist bump" thing.



Yeah, and that says a lot.  Its dangerous, to embrace The Stupid in such high doses, and we may not end up going far enough.

rong

"a real smart feller, he felt smart"

Triple Zero

Quote from: rong on September 04, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other? 

-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved

well they are already pitted against eachother? unless you pick two that are on the "same side"?
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

rong

Quote from: Triple Zero on September 04, 2009, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: rong on September 04, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other? 

-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved

well they are already pitted against eachother? unless you pick two that are on the "same side"?

yeah - i guess what i was trying to say was take advantage of the fact that media networks are enemies.
"a real smart feller, he felt smart"


Cainad (dec.)

Idea for a specific angle: Science Reporting


Iason posted this comic in the Pics thread not too long ago:




Most of us are aware of just how buggered science reporting for the masses is. Individual experiment results are trumpeted as definite and 100% proof that science just discovered the next most awesomest thing evar (and then the stories are promptly forgotten), and important but boring-sounding or esoteric research gets sidelined in favor of stuff that's easier to spin into a sensationalist and catchy headline.

Now, there are two ways to go about this: we can trawl through scientific publications that are geared towards a larger audience and find stuff that our obviously superior brains can sniff out as hyperbolic hogwash... or we can get in touch with real scientists and ask them for their stories of when their research has been misunderstood or flat-out misrepresented by the journalist who was writing the story or the editor who published it.

Either way, it's a fair bit of effort. However, I personally prefer the method in which we contact real scientists and get their stories, because I think this is something many of them feel strongly about.

The end result will be a campaign on our part to relate these anecdotes in a way that makes it clear that mainstream science reporting is always to be taken with a few grains of salt. It may only be a small step towards portraying the media as full of shit, but it's one that I, and I think many others on this forum, feel strongly about.

Golden Applesauce

Quote from: Gramulus on September 04, 2009, 01:18:04 PM
idea: provide the tools and information for people to create their own media hoaxes

when people see how the media really works (even if only in theory), they'll realize how dumb the process is.

   >make up a contraversial topic. pull some "soundbites" from "authorities"
   >write a press kit which does all the work for the journalist
   >send in stuff close to deadline so editors don't have time to research
   >when your stuff makes the news, clip it out and include the clippings in your second-pass press kit
   >the journalists see the clipping, they'll assume they don't have to do any fact checking because someone else already did.

imagine if the media reported on the high number of fake news stories
how would they cover their own process and people's perception of it?

classic double-bind

If there was a way to make generating a fake news story as easy as generating a demotivational poster or lolcat captioned image type thing, that might be something.  The sheer volume of fake shit being sent to media might make them do a little more fact checking first?  I don't really know how one would go about doing this, though, or if it's something within our capabilities.  Something about automating postings to multiple blogs, automagically starting fake twitter rumors, etc when proper input is given.  So the user would visit our website, enter a fake news article and a few fake blog posts, and the website would generate believable looking blogs with the entered post and start our twitter drones quoting sentences containing user-supplied keywords?  I'm not saying that's feasible, just what came to my head.
Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.