|
|
Musings Report #50 12-10-16 "Fake News", Censorship, Darwin and Democracy
You are receiving this email because you are one of the 500+ subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they are basically a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
"Fake News", Censorship, Darwin and Democracy
The mainstream media is awash with hyper-active headlines about "fake news." How can we make sense of this sudden obsession?
Perhaps we can start by separating "news" from "analysis" from "commentary." "News" is "he said this, she did that, this happened." Analysis tries to make sense of trends that are apparent in the news longer-term--for example, why did Trump win? Is the economy actually healthy or not? "Commentary" is opinion that establishes a point of view and defends it while attacking other POVs.
All three of these news flows are constantly being spun /manipulated to support specific agendas and narratives. Now we are being told some of these news flows are false/ misleading and their intent is to disrupt democracy.
I would counter that censorship is not helpful to democracy--rather, it is the death of democracy. It's all too obvious in the MSM hysteria over "fake news" that the narrative being pushed is: any criticism of Hillary or questions about her health, foundation, etc., were BY DEFINITION Russian propaganda.
Never mind that few if any voters changed their mind as a result of the "Russian hacking" (the Podesta emails); voters were already so polarized that the content of the emails did not influence their decision, which was based on deeper foundations than "news."
The fear of those who want to preserve democracy is that under the excuse of "eliminating Russian propaganda" the status quo will restrict everyone who is inconveniently challenging the status quo narratives with data-based analysis.
One of the underlying issues in the "fake news" narrative is: the Internet is a new medium. It enables seamless surfing over an endless range of topics and images, it enriches those who design click-bait headlines that grab our attention, it enables access to "forbidden" material such as pornography, and it enables participation in content creation: posting text and photos on Facebook, Twitter, etc., adding comments to others' posts, and establishing feeds, websites and blogs.
Media philosopher Marshall McCluhan proposed asking four questions of any new medium--with "medium" meaning the type of media: film, TV, print, comics, etc.
What does the medium enhance?
What does the medium make obsolete?
What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes?
If we ask these questions of the World Wide Web/Internet, how do we answer?
What does the medium enhance? One possible answer is attention deficit disorder, as the web enables and even encourages a process of surfing that deranges our attention and our ability to think critically about the flood of content we're leapfrogging.
But a second potential answer is that the web enhances access to the truly vast array of human knowledge and a staggering trove of information.
What does the medium make obsolete? One answer is "the conventional centralized corporate media" which curates, edits and massages the news flow to support specific narratives.
Another possible answer is "deep learning" as the temptation to jump to the next lilly pad overwhelms the discipline and focus needed to master difficult and nuanced material.
What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier? One answer might be "decentralized content creation and opinion." As the new mediums of newspapers, radio and TV expanded into every nook and cranny of the nation/world, the creation, curation, editing and massaging of content and opinion became intensely centralized.
This centralization led to a homogenization of content: no matter which of the three networks you were watching as the Vietnam war raged, the "news", content and opinion were basically the same.
Centralization of "news" and opinion enabled the central state to push a narrative that made its vested interests appear as inevitable elites rather than total fabrications that were dependent on the consent of the governed--a consent that was manufactured, in Noam Chomsky's phrase, to support the status quo narratives and thus the status quo's wealth and power.
But there was a problem with this centralization of content/opinion creation and curation: it no longer explained the events or trends that were visible in the "news."
If the federal government and the mainstream media were correct that we were "winning the war in Vietnam" and there was "light at the end of the tunnel," how could we explain what looked like a quagmire?
When the only medium available to dissenters and those challenging the status quo narratives were print (mimeographs, web offset printers, etc.) and physical gatherings (meetings, demonstrations, lectures, etc.) then the central state could limit or disrupt dissenting narratives fairly easily.
This was the impetus behind the CIA's CHAOS surveillance/disruption program and the FBI's COINTELPRO programs to infiltrate and disrupt dissenting groups.
Limiting dissent in the age of decentralized content creation and curation is far more problematic. The Chinese central state supposedly pays hundreds of thousands of people to maintain its Great Firewall, but despite this gargantuan expenditure of treasure and effort, non-approved ideas are still leaking into China via the web/Internet.
200 years ago people printed pamphlets and spoke to small gatherings on street corners. That decentralized chaos was replaced by homogenized, centralized "news" and content curation.
Now the web has enabled millions of pamphlets and small gatherings, and the Powers That Be rightly feel their ability to control the "news" and narratives to support the ruling elites is irrevocably eroding--and hence their panicked demands to be given the power to eradicate "fake news," i.e. the baby of dissent will conveniently be tossed out with the dirty bathwater of click-bait and "foreign propaganda."
What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes? That is the question of the moment. Does the Internet flip into centralized censorship a la China's Great Firewall, where only ruling-elite approved "news" is distributed as "truth," or does the Internet descend further into a Wild West where anything goes, and the worst impulses of the human Id run amok?
This chaos has been described as a "failed state," and this choice of words is quite interesting. For it suggests that the Internet should be an orderly, centrally managed "digital state" much like the central states that govern physical nations.
Perhaps what has failed is the narrative that everything falls apart if it isn't centrally managed and curated, a narrative that inevitably leads to censorship under the guise of "protecting you, the easily confused sheep, from these nasty wolves."
Censorship then enables another, much more well-organized and centralized pack of wolves (the ruling elites) to prey on the obedient sheep at their leisure, without fear of any dissenting narratives.
What the ruling political elites and their mainstream media shills fear is a wide-open, chaotic and very Darwinian competition of concepts and ideas.
They fear this so profoundly because they all know, somewhere in their hearts and minds, that their narrative is bankrupt, and that it no longer explains the world around us. It has failed, and this failure is now self-evident.
The mainstream media has faithfully promoted a neoliberal, neoconservative, Keynesian narrative that has failed to produce the expected results. No wonder trust in the mainstream media has declined sharply in the past few years. Why should we trust a centralized institution that has parroted policies and narratives that haven’t produced the widespread security and prosperity that its proponents promised?
The mainstream media’s “experts” who decry populism would rather blame "foreign propaganda" than examine why populism is on the rise: the mainstream political, financial and social institutions have failed to deliver what they promised, implicitly or explicitly.
This failure is powering a search for new ways to understand our world, and this is a positive dynamic. The process is messy and fraught with bad ideas, fake news, hidden agendas, propaganda, and here and there, powerful new ideas and narratives.
The ruling elites and their mainstream corporate media desperately want to shore up their failing narrative by censoring the creation, curation and distribution of competing ideas and narratives.
As noted above, censorship is not helpful to democracy--rather, it is the death of democracy. We should ponder that as the mainstream media's increasingly frantic cries for censorship fill the airwaves.
Unfortunately for the ruling elites and their mainstream media shills, you can't put the Internet genie back in the bottle without destroying the economy and democracy.
Summary of the Blog This Past Week
U.S. Census Bureau, I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve Added to Washington Post's list of "Russian Propaganda" Websites 12/9/16
Populism in America: "Follow the Money" 12/8/16
Our "Gaslight" Economy 12/7/16
Our "Gaslight" Financial System 12/6/16
A Disintegrative Winter: The Debt and Anti-Status Quo Super-Cycle Has Turned 12/5/16
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
NakedCapitalism.com demanded a retraction of the Washington Post "fake news" denouncing independent journalism sites.
Market Musings: Whither Gold?
Gold has had a wild ride this year, soaring from $1060 in january to $1375 in July and then recently falling over $200 to $1160.
Some observers are calling for sub-$1000 gold. Martin Armstrong is suggesting gold is losing its "safe haven" status due to the proposed confiscation of gold in India.
Others are noting key support/resistance around $1150-$1160 and proposing that gold could soar from here.
What I notice is that gold tumbled right when bond yields began to climb. The idea here is gold loses lustre when investors can earn a decent yield on their money.
There's an interesting divergence of signals. On the weekly charts, a bullish cross is about to occur as the 50-week crosses up through the 200-week moving average.
On the other hand, MACD is below neutral (where bad things happen) and declining. This doesn't look positive for gold near-term.
Broadly speaking, if yields continue marching higher, it's difficult to see this as constructive for gold. If yields collapse again in a deflationary spiral, gold may get a tailwind.
Sometimes the best we can conclude is "this could go either way." Until gold recovers $1250 or decisively breaches $1150, there's a lot to be said for "wait and watch."
From Left Field
45 Trillion Reasons Why China Can't Challenge America’s Economic Might --sure to annoy China Bulls...
The Most Disruptive Transformation in History: How the clustering of knowledge lays bare the need to devolve power from the nation-state to the city
Liberal Pop-Culture Has Officially Outlived Its Usefulness in Politics -- the word from L.A....
Missing the Economic Big Picture -- how about stagnating wages?
The Problem with the U.S. Economy Isn’t Something Politicians Can Fix -- please don't say that!
Can Donald Trump really rebuild America?
The Trouble With Trump's Infrastructure Plan
Donald Trump and the New Economic Order -- Michael Spence checks in...
If You Build It, They Won't Come
D is for Degrowth
The Free Trade Fallacy (via Lew G.)-- the Archdruid's take on the failure of "free trade"
NPR: National Public Radio Or National Propaganda Radio? -- few dare criticize PBS/NPR...
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding." Marshall McLuhan
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
