Poll: How concerned are you about ads, marketing, propaganda?

[Augustus]

Which news outlets widely regarded as reputable do you actively avoid, and why? Would the Associated Press or Reuters fall within that category?

As much as possible I avoid everything, I imagine I've reduced consumption by 95%. Have the odd peek here and there but usually targeted at something in particular rather than general browsing/watching.

Since Trump media of whatever persuasion has become more overtly ideological in framing of many stories, but that's not really the main problem.

Even if media was perfectly objective the news cycle updates to quickly and is too prone to manipulation to get things right: the faster the news cycle, the less accurate the news (for example, watch major live breaking news note down all the details, see how many were correct after a week or 2).

All of this has been exacerbated by the destruction of the traditional funding model and demands of online news that has fewer, cheaper journalists with a need to churn out ever more, cheaper stories.

I don't often go out of my way to browse the news, but when I do, I find it best to check multiple outlets, including ones I consider untrustworthy. Still, while no outlet is perfectly accurate, I think it goes without saying that some are much more reliable than others.

I agree some are more reliable, and checking multiple sources can sometimes help, but it's not a panacea.

Often the source is the same (newswire, PR, circular reporting, etc.), and with opposing views, being misinformed from 2 different perspectives doesn't make us informed.

 

[Augustus]

The scary thing is that they have become one and the same in many instances. "News stories" that are actually paid advertisements, and paid ads that present lies as "news" are happening all the time. Oil spills don't get reported because the oil company is a major advertising income source for the news network doing the reporting. Greed poisons everything it touches when no one does anything for it's own sake or value, anymore, but instead does everything for monetary profit. We don't produce the news to inform people, anymore, we produce it for the monetary profit to be gained from it. And you can't shut that poisonous greed off. It infects everything and everyone. It forces us to participate in it just to survive it.

It's not news stories that are paid ads that is the major issue, but news stories that originate via PR sources. Depending on the media outlet, something this can be from 20-80% of all stories.

In the old media environment advertisers had more clout, but now its Google and FB who are taking most of the advertising revenue online. TV networks don't have the same agenda setting/gatekeeping power they used to either.

The problem is the need for lots of cheap, fast, entertaining news. What's cheap is stuff provided via PR, opinion, secondary reporting (stories on what people say on social media, etc.), reliance on agencies, etc.

It's not so much greed, but survival in such an environment dependent on "engagement" and clicks provided by cheap, expendable journalists.

 

[Orbit]

Ads and marketing are annoying; propaganda is dangerous. I don't see them as equivalent.

 

[PureX]

It's not news stories that are paid ads that is the major issue, but news stories that originate via PR sources. Depending on the media outlet, something this can be from 20-80% of all stories.

In the old media environment advertisers had more clout, but now its Google and FB who are taking most of the advertising revenue online. TV networks don't have the same agenda setting/gatekeeping power they used to either.

The problem is the need for lots of cheap, fast, entertaining news. What's cheap is stuff provided via PR, opinion, secondary reporting (stories on what people say on social media, etc.), reliance on agencies, etc.

It's not so much greed, but survival in such an environment dependent on "engagement" and clicks provided by cheap, expendable journalists.

"Survival" is being judged entirely by profitability, though. It used to be that the ads paid for the news service, and were kept completely separated from it. They interrupted the news once or twice and we put up with that because we understood that the advertisers were paying for the news service that we were receiving for cheap or for free. But that made delivering the news to the public a cost expenditure from the bean-counter's perspective: something that cut into the profitability of the advertising revenue stream. And as the revenue stream became more and more and more the only relevant concern, taking money from advertisers to turn their advertising message into a phony "news story" made delivering the news less of a cost expenditure. Less harmful to that 'bottom line'. So something that was once unthinkable: deliberately creating phony news stories for money, has now become commonplace.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ads and marketing are annoying;

I think it's gone well past annoying. Ads have definitely crossed that line into intrusive/forceful territory as well as invading people's personal space and selling private information where they ought not to be.

There needs to be legal lines drawn for these practices, and sharp consequences to put a firm stop to it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Every day, modern society exposes us to advertisements, marketing material, and various forms of propaganda. Do you notice when you're being exposed? Do you care?

I can't fit myself into any of the categories.
I'd say I'm very concerned, but I consume this material all the time.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're asking?

 

[Stevicus]

Every day, modern society exposes us to advertisements, marketing material, and various forms of propaganda. Do you notice when you're being exposed? Do you care?

I've learned to view such material through a certain filter. My grandfather taught me that when I was very young, as he was a salesman and knew every pitch and weasel word.

Recognizing propaganda is not so much what they say, as much as how they say it. And also what they don't say - the information that's left out.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not a cognitive scientist, but as a teacher I've been successfully applying cognitive science for years and years. I've run everything I'm about to say by several cognitive scientists, and they've told me that for all practical purposes, this stuff is true:

We need to remember that we have a conscious MIND and a subconscious BRAIN. Our minds and brains are frequently in conflict with each other. It's often the case that the BRAIN is doing things the MIND doesn't want it to do. Our MINDS, where are egos live, like to think that they're the boss, but they're not. Much of what the BRAIN does is above the security clearance of the MIND, e.g. keeping our hearts pumping.

All this to say, your MIND CANNOT "ignore" ads, marketing, or propaganda (AMP?), you expose yourself to. You cannot "tune it out". Your conscious MIND might say "I'm not listening, nah, nah, nah", but your BRAIN is listening and watching.

One of your BRAIN's primary mechanisms for learning is through pattern matching. It learns through repetition. Think about a toddler learning how to walk. We don't hand toddlers "walking manuals". We don't give toddlers "walking instructions". We do not try to explain the complex sequence of movements of various body parts required to walk. Toddlers watch older people walking and they try walking - a lot - before they can walk.

Now think about a company like Google. Google has earned TRILLIONS of dollars. The companies who pay Google are most of the most successful companies in the world. All of these demonstrably successful companies have spent TRILLIONS of dollars with Google (and other ad and marketing channels), because they KNOW that AMP works.

You might in fact be able to spot propaganda. Your BRAIN does NOT care what label your MIND puts on the content that's being consumed.

What you CAN do is ask yourself, where in my life am I exposed to repetitive messaging? And you can choose to avoid those channels.