Not a hint of attribution to new-media clickbait farms, the head of which is Buzzfeed, who've eviscerated attention spans, long-form journalism and its funding, and pumped the internet full of low-effort, divisive content merely created to generate outrage for ad-clicks.
>What you think doesn’t count very much anymore. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Most people with power try to take advantage of people like yourself. The people running the country don’t really care what happens to you. You’re left out of things going on around you.
All of the above will increase with more exposure to what is going on in the world, which is provided by the internet, and all of which will further inclined to be agreed with by journalists reporting on it in a biased manner done for the purpose of generating ad-revenue from outrage driven clicks.
You can argue that the new digital era has alienated people simply by existing, but the new media is the ultimate culprit after having spent the last decade stoking tension in atomizing society based on uncontrollable, biologically determined factors and creating a sense of victimhood and entitlement amongst each of their subdivisions.
If the new media is an inevitable byproduct of the digital era simply existing, which is how things look to me, it still makes sense to follow things back to the root cause. How many examples are there of successful media organizations that don't at some level run the same way as the one you're lambasting? Being owned and funded by a government or a multibillionaire to serve as their propaganda outlet are viable but have their own problems that might or might not be worse.
people simply spend a lot more time online, reading stuff. the papers feed this newfound addiction. i don't think it's fair to always accuse only the media for giving people what they asked for. after all it is people that turned their backs on their physical surroundings, first with books, then with TV , now with the internet, and in the future possibly with VR
> who've eviscerated attention spans, long-form journalism and its funding, and pumped the internet full of low-effort, divisive content merely created to generate outrage for ad-clicks.
I don't think some newspapers were much better, seeing how they filled with barely true news snippet between ads for local business.
>What you think doesn’t count very much anymore. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Most people with power try to take advantage of people like yourself. The people running the country don’t really care what happens to you. You’re left out of things going on around you.
All of the above will increase with more exposure to what is going on in the world, which is provided by the internet, and all of which will further inclined to be agreed with by journalists reporting on it in a biased manner done for the purpose of generating ad-revenue from outrage driven clicks.
You can argue that the new digital era has alienated people simply by existing, but the new media is the ultimate culprit after having spent the last decade stoking tension in atomizing society based on uncontrollable, biologically determined factors and creating a sense of victimhood and entitlement amongst each of their subdivisions.