I'm not sure what the exact catalyst was - it was probably more of a combination of factors than anything else actually. Hype, biases, slants, and just a general sense that you get better informed by simply reading a variety of direct sources about given topics instead. Those are all biased towards their own agendas of course, but at least by reading multiple sides of a story independently you can come to some (hopefully) more rounded and balanced conclusions.
The Australian federal election is on in a couple of weeks. Although I see a trickle of mainstream media information on Facebook, I'm managing to mostly get my information from looking up party sites and policy documents directly. And contrasting and comparing. I don't think much can change my usual voting patterns anyway, but there might be some slight adjustments, who knows. But either way - there's not much that the muckraking that you see in the mainstream media can contribute.
I think the main thing that ultimately bothered me about the mainstream media is how it reflects community biases. This is inevitable of course. The entire model is basically a case of being popular, generating ideological groupthink, and then farming clicks and ad hits. Or in the case of what's happening with many popular outlets in Australia now - paid subscriptions.
But the older I get and the more I embrace alternative views about some pretty basic things - the more I could see how much of what's presented just feeds insecure lowest common denominators in people. I don't like such and such, and it's refreshing to see such and such being talked about in a negative light. Or the other way around.
Occasionally you see some good pieces being published of course, as well as interesting commentary (both formal pieces as well as reader comment discussions). But the noise-to-signal ratio has been getting to the point lately where it just wasn't worthwhile staying subscribed anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment