It's nothing to be happy about. It's shifting a pile of money around the table, from one kind of stupid brainless content to another mostly.
This idea of a brave new independent media vs stuffy old big media is in many ways an illusion. There's huge capital and algorithms steering the plebs towards this new kind of crap to consume. What matters is the crap is always dominant. That's the rule. As long as that's the case nothing changes.
It's actually about to get worse in my opinion. You might not have a lot of respect for CNN's current journalistic standards but can anyone actually believe Jynxzi, Zackrawrr and Summit1g will do a better job keeping their viewers informed? For every wonderful substack like this one there are a hundred Logan Paul and Andrew Tates manipulating and exploiting their audience in the most outrageous way.
It's the begining of Idiocracy unfolding before our eyes. A small group of smart people curating quality content for themselves and a huge group of people sinking deeper and deeper into the swamp of limbic capitalism. I don't know what shape the future will take but I have trouble imagining it ending well.
Just trying to remember iPhones and social media thirty years ago. That would be 1994 for those challenged by simple arithmetic. Failing. Does not compute.
That is, this comment above shows exactly what is wrong with a non-factchecked media experience provided by those who run at the mouth.
Yet you managed to "fact-check" an obvious mistake. Will you be THE "fact-checker" now? Or will you determine who the "fact-checkers" should be? And, if not, who will choose them? It's probably best if fact checking is done by individuals who are willing to actually fact-check.
Even for “internet and electronic communication,” I might correct to 35 years since they came into “civilian” use. And consumers using home computers? You might claim 5 years earlier than that. And the internet itself has been around far longer as a military and academic “resource.” Sorry to be snide. I’m just a bit burned on all the loose “facts” that fly around these days and add layer after layer of confusion to almost any conversation.
Can't disagree, but it's been at least thirty years since I've had any faith in the MSM. As they say, I didn't leave them, they left me.
I suppose the story of the Phoenix exists for a reason. Out of these ashes, something will arise. We can only hope that it is good. It certainly can't be much worse than what we've experienced.
For all of their shortcomings - big media companies at least take legal checks seriously and (at least before Fox News made blatant bias acceptable) were cogniziant of the need to address a wide audience.
Rather than just saying any old rubbish to get their supporters fired up and sticking their middle fingers up at any notion of legality, propriety and decency
I believe you are in error. FOX picked up all the people who were fed up with being lied to by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS and NPR. I won't shill for FOX, but the myth that only fools watch it and only really smart people watch the other crap is just that; myth.
To be honest, I doubt that any really smart people would waste much time watching the 'news' served up by any TV network nowadays - Fox, MSNBC, CNN or anyone else.
TV news is pretty shallow the world over nowadays. But per my original post - at least institutionalised media is held in check by regulations and the need to at least appear respectable to a wider audience.
Well, no, they are centrist-partisan, with a few slight leftward thrusts at MSNBC, and have been for decades. The left is not a fixture on MORNING JOE nor essentially any series on CNN with the notable exception of their version of HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU, a toe in the water for comedy.
Perhaps I should clarify myself, in that I would say that MSNBC and some, but not all, other mainstream outlets tilt left (maybe saying that they were partisan was too strong). Some of the 'others' include the NYT and Time.
I really don't care which way anyone tilts. It's a free country. But essentially all MSM are incredibly shallow, dumbed down. The reporting is not just biased, but untruthful. Their shallow, pointless name calling reminds me of a sixth grade cafeteria.
I learn far more on Substack, from people I didn't even know existed until two years ago.
I can have a conversation with anyone, regardless of their views, if they are knowledgeable and informative and can expand my horizons. In fact, I prefer a discussion with someone I disagree with. I learn nothing from people who see things the same as I do.
I gathered that was the gist of your critique...if you think of neoliberalism or Rockefeller Republicanism as The Left, you have a rather skewed view of what politics is (as opposed to who usually gets elected in this country, given how money always talks loudest here).
Back in The Good Old Days, publishing news was hard. For one thing, you needed a printing press, which was expensive and required specialized staff to operate it. Not only that, but a printing press cost money for every sheet of paper printed, and you had to spend more money on distribution.
They say that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" but there's more! Unless you planned to publish as an expensive and time-consuming hobby, you needed an income stream. You would get some money from subscriptions, but subscriptions are really a means to sell advertising. Dependence on advertising meant that there were some people the publisher had to keep happy, and others he could not afford to annoy.
Anyone who knows anything about local news knows this. At best, it's a tightrope walk between giving subscribers the news they want to know, and not infuriating your advertisers. The result was a sort of natural censorship. Publishers had to think long and hard before they published anything that would tork the bigwigs off. The fact that a publisher was tied to a physical location and physical assets also made libel suits much easier.
The internet changed all that. Now, any anonymous toolio with a laptop and WiFi can go into the news publishing business by nightfall, and with worldwide distribution and advertising revenue, to boot. Marginal cost of readership is zero. Needless to say, this development has The People That Matter very concerned, and they are working hard to stuff that genie back into the bottle.
Thank you for saving my time typing this. Mass stupidity is now spreading through different channels, but as you noticed, it's what it has been since mass media were invented, difficult to stop.
At 76 years of age, it's fair to say I'm entering the home stretch, but one thing I won't miss when I put my cue back in the rack is the complete bastardization of the entertainment models that have sustained me for seven decades.
Sorry about the delayed response. I have a Substack account, but I've not yet made use of it. If you liked my pool cue analogy, "called for the check" also works.
It's inevitable that someone(s) with a YouTube channel will do more for new music than record labels because labels would rather buy catalogues than develop and nourish new talent. And that will come at a cost to their influence which will decline.
Zafiros - Yes. And there's a cohort of young instrumentalists and singers, from all over the world, who are using YouTube, Tidal, Bandcamp, Spotify, et. al. to get their music out. It really seems to be working, and while I'm not following contemporary US pop (any genre), there are a *lot* of talented people, working in many genres, whose work is findable there.
Ted, to clarify about podcasts and YT, there are a great many kinds of "old" media that use it as the primary outlet for podcasting now (includes the NYT). I know you're good at crunching numbers, but if i were you, I'd investigate who and what all is behind those numbers in the 1st place. It really might not be who/what you think. (Also true of TikTok.)
Fwiw, since the summer I've found huge amounts of legal online content that's being uploaded by broadcasters and the biggest indie record labels in Brazil. One show that's worth looking into: Ensaiao. It's made in Sao Paulo, and the breadth and diversity of the live-in-studio shows they've been doing since the late 60s is stunning. I could watch a new upload (from their archives) every night for the next 3-4 months and never repeat an episode, let alone be able to keep up with their content - and that's just *one* show.
Per the biggest indie label in Brazil, it's called Biscoito Fino, and they've uploaded some incredible shows that are (or were) originally issued by them on CD and DVD. I am talking about people who have been around for many years, as well as much younger musicians. BF finally figured out that one way to beat music and video piracy is to make much of their content available for free. (Am hoping that a number of smaller, equally good indie labels will follow suit.)
And... one writer's kid does *not* represent all kids who are using online media outlets, let alone provide a decent sample of who/what kids are watching. It's impossible. In fact, I feel like it's too easy to react to stuff like that and run around shouting "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" You need to diversify a bit. If it was my blog, i think I'd be talking to a bunch of kids - as many as i could - to try and get a clearer picture. B/c the start of this post reminds me very much of that late 60s catchphrase - the generation gap. It's still a thing, even if we don't refer to it that way anymore.
Per game devs and games, there are so many indie games, created by small studios, available already! If you haven't checked out the offerings on Steam, I'd suggest that you do. Some of my favorites are made by a tiny studio in Singapore. They have 6-7 employees. The guy who started the company is English, but everyone else is from Singapore. (They've pulled all of their mobile games from the Google Play store, as they're back to creating games for PC, and still - that company will never get big, nor are they ever going to stop listening to folks who enjoy their games.)
The way that news and World affairs issues reach us has changed, and instead of coming through a few narrow funnels it showers onto us from all over the place. It’s a huge change and it’s changing things faster than we can keep up with. I used to laugh when my daughter would say “I saw it on TikTok”; I don’t anymore. Instead of sneering we need a good look in the mirror and repent for the way we gobbled down all the lies and manipulation from those “reputed news outlets”, building up public opinion for unjust wars and barbaric behaviour. How could we have been such an easy prey?
I hear ya; my whole life seems to have been reading news that had been reported by a low-level reporter who got vetted while hiring and her stories all got vetted by the suits, because news has always been a business and you don't report nasty stuff done by some subsidiary of a corporation that either owns your news outlet of spends a lot on ads there.
Still: opinion and "wouldn't it be cool if...?" stories are not news. Without even corporate news we no idea what's really going on in the world; with the "legacy" outlets at least we could get good at reading between the lines.
Absolutely! I used to take pride and even identify with my news outlets (BBC, The Guardian, El País - I’m in Spain - NYT…) and it turns out I was the muppet and my teenagers were getting closer to the truth on TikTok. Some things are changing for the better.
I guess it’ll make easier prey of those not willing to put any effort into even getting close to the complexities of what’s happening, but it does give those who make an effort direct access to different views of what’s actually happening. Until recently the educated relied on their media for the educated to form their opinion for them. And they were turned into muppets.
Short-form media is inherently more deceptive and less complex, but go ahead and feel pity for me. I'm sure you'll do just fine, you are enjoying it already.
TikTokers are kind of muppets, now that you mention it.
Investigative journalism in Mainstream Media is nonexistent. More than a decade ago they began shedding reporting assets such as the foreign desk, drastically reducing support for in-depth, long-term reporting, and decimating the reporter corps. All for a short-term windfall for their new MBA overlords. Today’s daily newspaper is a withering shell of its former self.
The shedding and consolidating of foreign desks began during Nixon's administration. Just a few at first, almost all of them belonged to newspapers but I remember being shocked when ABC closed its Paris desk.
Fair comment. But it's probably a reflection of the collapse in revenues from advertising and, in the case of newspapers and magazines, the sales of their paper editions (although digital subscription revenueshave recovered some of that). It also reflects the fact that our attention spans have collapsed too.
Sure, a media outlet could devote significant resources to research and write in depth stories. But who would have the time and patience to read the finished articles anymore?
Back when I worked for The Denver Post in the early 1990s, the classified section was huge to the paper. The conventional wisdom was that classifieds were known to pay for all day to day operations: printers, pressman, sales reps, all salaries. The display ads were all gravy, just pure profit.
You absolutely should, yes. But during this smartphone era, where information is most often presented in de-contextualised 'snippets' - many people are out of the habit of concentrating on single, long form articles for extended periods of time (sometimes I struggle with this as well).
During the W43 admin some reporter from the NYT or Wa Po was told by a member of the Admin that the reporter was from "the reality-based community." Even then they sensed 1.) adults, and 2.) terminally clueless children of all ages who only wanted to be told "reality" is what they want it to be.
This was before all the social media and YouTube stuff took off.
The problem to me is: okay, the "legacy media" is dying. But at least those were ADULTS. I don't think 57 year old adolescents like Joe Rogan can be trusted to report on anything that has to do with the meat and potatoes "boring" news stories that nevertheless have bearing on our quality of life. And I should clarify that I'm speaking as a non-rich person who has zero interest in "influencers," being hopelessly olde myself.
There are events in the world that occur that need to be covered by people schooled in basic reporting and journalistic ethics. Then there is: OPINION. Does anyone know the difference? Show of hands?
I get the glee over dinosaurs becoming obsolete, but we still need actual journalists to report on actual news. Who will do this?
ProPublica has provided outstanding investigative journalism for years.
Their coverage includes both local and national stories...they're expanding local coverage in 2025.
As legacy media dies in daylight, subscription fees should be directed towards ProPublica, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Texas Tribune, The Tennessee Holler, and other outlets performing fact-based reporting.
I guess the answer is ordinary people. For good and for bad. They can lie too, but you can put one up against the other and actually analyse evidence. A journalist is going to lie to you and you’re going to believe him because she’s a journalist.
I’m less concerned with how this shakes out as far as who is buying what or earning from what, than with how this will continue to destroy politics, shared national culture( or even regional and local culture….what happened to a sense of place??) and a sense of belonging to a shared reality. Does someone who follows Jynxshie or whatever it is even have the same reference for ANYTHING as someone who follows Dan Rather and Heather Richardson? It’s already here as you and Rick Beato so convincingly report with media and I see with my own eyes (and ears). The complete lack of understanding from most of my acquaintance for the need to BUY music, to support people who play an actual instrument, or sing, or drum, rather than twist knobs on a box or play an iPad on stage. Will our cultural hunter gatherer tribalism result in an actual literal political feudalism as people gather around whatever magical thinking anti-science, guru or culture icon who carves out actual space as well as digital space?
Not many people trust the so called mainstream media anymore, they lied about Covid they lied about Biden’s mental health and many other issues, they had just become a mouthpiece for the Democrats and whatever agenda they were pushing, it became difficult to know where the Democrat party starts and the media ends. I’m guessing that when Trump gets sworn in they will suddenly find their backbone again and start questioning the powerful.
I think I saw this from a guest on Bartiromo's show: "I don't call it the "mainstream media" anymore; it's no longer mainstream. I call it "legacy media."
Most -- not all -- of those streamers are generating that content by playing games (KaiCenat even had a popular Elden Ring series, though he is bigger than games).
It's also important to note that one of the main game formats right now is Battle Royale -- a group of players drop into an arena totally equal, rely on chance and skill to gather weapons and survive, and ultimately claim the top prize (e.g. PUBG, Fortnite, etc.). Call of Duty and other FPS games are radically democratic and give young men (and old) a way of testing themselves and achieving in a public space.
As a result of its popularity, gaming is generating big money and engagement. However, it is constantly in conflict with corporate overlords, who don't respect the secret sauce to a compelling game and feel like they have to corrupt their titles with politics by jamming woke / DEI nonsense into everything. Asmongold is one streamer who covers this conflict, pointing out the problems and getting into scraps with supporters of lefty stuff (look up Sweet Baby Inc. for context).
Some AAA games that have integrity have succeeded (e.g. Elden Ring, Astro Bot). Many corporate games have not (look up Concord, anything by Ubisoft including Star Wars: Outlaws, etc.). The losses have been outrageous -- we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, again and again.
And then you have the indie scene, where true magic happens. With very little overhead, a card game called Balatro, developed by a single still-anonymous person called LocalThunk in tandem with a musician and a localizer, has racked up millions of sales and won tons of awards.
I would say that gaming is probably the most important entertainment category right now -- and the least understood by elites. If you aren't playing some kind of game, you are blind to all of this.
So I think your analysis, while smart as hell, could do with some exposure to this side of things. People are playing games because it gives them freedom they have been denied in real life.
Tim - I think another reason for playing games (it's definitely one of mine) is that in games, people have some control over their in-game lives and circumstances. I know that gaming *really* helped me get through 2016-early 2021, although (as a woman) I'm not attracted to the kinds of games you mentioned. I *do* like a number of strategy games, especially when they have a psychological aspect, not just "I'll put my troops here."
Also, Elden Ring is popular with many women who game. I think that there's not nearly enough acknowledgement or acceptance of women gamers *and* devs. I'm not really a gamer per se, but i know women who are.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I didn’t meant to disregard female gamers, and I kinda love that women are into games. (I sometimes watch the Catherine of Sky strategy games channel.) I also find my tastes shifting as I get older. As you get older, once you play enough of one kind of game the novelty wears off and you become more particular and discerning. I’m finding that I like fewer and fewer games as time goes on.
I didn't think that at all! But few people seem to want to acknowledge women in the field - devs, artists, programmers, players, etc. I've been in touch with several women who are part of a studio that I really like, Springloaded. Most of the (very small) staff is Chinese, from Singapore.
It’s not “new tech” that has enabled solo devs to make excellent titles like Balatro and Animal Well which released this year. IMO it is making something with passion, rather than trying to spend and focus group their way to success.
Where are these independent streamers getting the news they are commenting on? Someone still has to go out to places and ask people questions and do basic journalistic investigations. The way I see it, what's being hijacked by the streaming influencers is primarily the jobs of the anchors who read the news on camera. Aren't these streamers essentially glorified anchorpeople combined with editorializers? We can't just have a world of anchors and commentators. Someone still has to go get the news in the first place and that's expensive.
Who or whatever that genie is that ain't going back into the bottle will still need to entertain or divert an audience to build a market. We live in a Market Ruled nation which reduces life and the arts that reflect on the mysteries of life, existence, being, community to competing stimuli. Keep yo eye on da Stimuli! It lies before US....
mainstream celebrity is dead! Hollywood is collapsing, The NBA ratings have gone the way of CNN. The era of freedom of choice in media is upon us. Amen!
Wow - a lot to take in, to think about, to pay attention to as things develop, and to try not to worry too much about, being a totally uninfluencial boomer ... Thank you
It's nothing to be happy about. It's shifting a pile of money around the table, from one kind of stupid brainless content to another mostly.
This idea of a brave new independent media vs stuffy old big media is in many ways an illusion. There's huge capital and algorithms steering the plebs towards this new kind of crap to consume. What matters is the crap is always dominant. That's the rule. As long as that's the case nothing changes.
It's actually about to get worse in my opinion. You might not have a lot of respect for CNN's current journalistic standards but can anyone actually believe Jynxzi, Zackrawrr and Summit1g will do a better job keeping their viewers informed? For every wonderful substack like this one there are a hundred Logan Paul and Andrew Tates manipulating and exploiting their audience in the most outrageous way.
It's the begining of Idiocracy unfolding before our eyes. A small group of smart people curating quality content for themselves and a huge group of people sinking deeper and deeper into the swamp of limbic capitalism. I don't know what shape the future will take but I have trouble imagining it ending well.
a little-known fact is that "Idiocracy" is actually a documentary.
Just trying to remember iPhones and social media thirty years ago. That would be 1994 for those challenged by simple arithmetic. Failing. Does not compute.
That is, this comment above shows exactly what is wrong with a non-factchecked media experience provided by those who run at the mouth.
Yet you managed to "fact-check" an obvious mistake. Will you be THE "fact-checker" now? Or will you determine who the "fact-checkers" should be? And, if not, who will choose them? It's probably best if fact checking is done by individuals who are willing to actually fact-check.
Jeez. You real or a bot? What a freaking dumb remark.
Even for “internet and electronic communication,” I might correct to 35 years since they came into “civilian” use. And consumers using home computers? You might claim 5 years earlier than that. And the internet itself has been around far longer as a military and academic “resource.” Sorry to be snide. I’m just a bit burned on all the loose “facts” that fly around these days and add layer after layer of confusion to almost any conversation.
Can't disagree, but it's been at least thirty years since I've had any faith in the MSM. As they say, I didn't leave them, they left me.
I suppose the story of the Phoenix exists for a reason. Out of these ashes, something will arise. We can only hope that it is good. It certainly can't be much worse than what we've experienced.
Yes.
For all of their shortcomings - big media companies at least take legal checks seriously and (at least before Fox News made blatant bias acceptable) were cogniziant of the need to address a wide audience.
Rather than just saying any old rubbish to get their supporters fired up and sticking their middle fingers up at any notion of legality, propriety and decency
I believe you are in error. FOX picked up all the people who were fed up with being lied to by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS and NPR. I won't shill for FOX, but the myth that only fools watch it and only really smart people watch the other crap is just that; myth.
To be honest, I doubt that any really smart people would waste much time watching the 'news' served up by any TV network nowadays - Fox, MSNBC, CNN or anyone else.
TV news is pretty shallow the world over nowadays. But per my original post - at least institutionalised media is held in check by regulations and the need to at least appear respectable to a wider audience.
Agreed. Spending any amount of time on Twitter is enough to persuade one that legacy media are paragons of truth (despite their flaws).
Sure, MSNBC and other mainstream outlets are left-partisan these days, but was that the case before Fox News started?
Well, no, they are centrist-partisan, with a few slight leftward thrusts at MSNBC, and have been for decades. The left is not a fixture on MORNING JOE nor essentially any series on CNN with the notable exception of their version of HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU, a toe in the water for comedy.
"Centrist-partisan." Really? Please explain where you consider yourself in this scheme.
Perhaps I should clarify myself, in that I would say that MSNBC and some, but not all, other mainstream outlets tilt left (maybe saying that they were partisan was too strong). Some of the 'others' include the NYT and Time.
I really don't care which way anyone tilts. It's a free country. But essentially all MSM are incredibly shallow, dumbed down. The reporting is not just biased, but untruthful. Their shallow, pointless name calling reminds me of a sixth grade cafeteria.
I learn far more on Substack, from people I didn't even know existed until two years ago.
I can have a conversation with anyone, regardless of their views, if they are knowledgeable and informative and can expand my horizons. In fact, I prefer a discussion with someone I disagree with. I learn nothing from people who see things the same as I do.
I gathered that was the gist of your critique...if you think of neoliberalism or Rockefeller Republicanism as The Left, you have a rather skewed view of what politics is (as opposed to who usually gets elected in this country, given how money always talks loudest here).
Back in The Good Old Days, publishing news was hard. For one thing, you needed a printing press, which was expensive and required specialized staff to operate it. Not only that, but a printing press cost money for every sheet of paper printed, and you had to spend more money on distribution.
They say that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" but there's more! Unless you planned to publish as an expensive and time-consuming hobby, you needed an income stream. You would get some money from subscriptions, but subscriptions are really a means to sell advertising. Dependence on advertising meant that there were some people the publisher had to keep happy, and others he could not afford to annoy.
Anyone who knows anything about local news knows this. At best, it's a tightrope walk between giving subscribers the news they want to know, and not infuriating your advertisers. The result was a sort of natural censorship. Publishers had to think long and hard before they published anything that would tork the bigwigs off. The fact that a publisher was tied to a physical location and physical assets also made libel suits much easier.
The internet changed all that. Now, any anonymous toolio with a laptop and WiFi can go into the news publishing business by nightfall, and with worldwide distribution and advertising revenue, to boot. Marginal cost of readership is zero. Needless to say, this development has The People That Matter very concerned, and they are working hard to stuff that genie back into the bottle.
Thank you for saving my time typing this. Mass stupidity is now spreading through different channels, but as you noticed, it's what it has been since mass media were invented, difficult to stop.
At 76 years of age, it's fair to say I'm entering the home stretch, but one thing I won't miss when I put my cue back in the rack is the complete bastardization of the entertainment models that have sustained me for seven decades.
Hi David! Great comment. Never heard that analogy before. Went right away to your Substack. Nothing there yet?
Jerad,
Sorry about the delayed response. I have a Substack account, but I've not yet made use of it. If you liked my pool cue analogy, "called for the check" also works.
“Who are these children
Who scheme and run wild
Who speak with their wings
And the way that they smile
What are the secrets
They trace in the sky
And why do you tremble
Each time they ride by”
—Steely Dan, 1975
Seems apropos. Totally agree. Mainstream Media has become a backwater.
It's inevitable that someone(s) with a YouTube channel will do more for new music than record labels because labels would rather buy catalogues than develop and nourish new talent. And that will come at a cost to their influence which will decline.
Zafiros - Yes. And there's a cohort of young instrumentalists and singers, from all over the world, who are using YouTube, Tidal, Bandcamp, Spotify, et. al. to get their music out. It really seems to be working, and while I'm not following contemporary US pop (any genre), there are a *lot* of talented people, working in many genres, whose work is findable there.
Ted, to clarify about podcasts and YT, there are a great many kinds of "old" media that use it as the primary outlet for podcasting now (includes the NYT). I know you're good at crunching numbers, but if i were you, I'd investigate who and what all is behind those numbers in the 1st place. It really might not be who/what you think. (Also true of TikTok.)
Fwiw, since the summer I've found huge amounts of legal online content that's being uploaded by broadcasters and the biggest indie record labels in Brazil. One show that's worth looking into: Ensaiao. It's made in Sao Paulo, and the breadth and diversity of the live-in-studio shows they've been doing since the late 60s is stunning. I could watch a new upload (from their archives) every night for the next 3-4 months and never repeat an episode, let alone be able to keep up with their content - and that's just *one* show.
Per the biggest indie label in Brazil, it's called Biscoito Fino, and they've uploaded some incredible shows that are (or were) originally issued by them on CD and DVD. I am talking about people who have been around for many years, as well as much younger musicians. BF finally figured out that one way to beat music and video piracy is to make much of their content available for free. (Am hoping that a number of smaller, equally good indie labels will follow suit.)
And... one writer's kid does *not* represent all kids who are using online media outlets, let alone provide a decent sample of who/what kids are watching. It's impossible. In fact, I feel like it's too easy to react to stuff like that and run around shouting "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" You need to diversify a bit. If it was my blog, i think I'd be talking to a bunch of kids - as many as i could - to try and get a clearer picture. B/c the start of this post reminds me very much of that late 60s catchphrase - the generation gap. It's still a thing, even if we don't refer to it that way anymore.
Per game devs and games, there are so many indie games, created by small studios, available already! If you haven't checked out the offerings on Steam, I'd suggest that you do. Some of my favorites are made by a tiny studio in Singapore. They have 6-7 employees. The guy who started the company is English, but everyone else is from Singapore. (They've pulled all of their mobile games from the Google Play store, as they're back to creating games for PC, and still - that company will never get big, nor are they ever going to stop listening to folks who enjoy their games.)
And then rinse and repeat....
The way that news and World affairs issues reach us has changed, and instead of coming through a few narrow funnels it showers onto us from all over the place. It’s a huge change and it’s changing things faster than we can keep up with. I used to laugh when my daughter would say “I saw it on TikTok”; I don’t anymore. Instead of sneering we need a good look in the mirror and repent for the way we gobbled down all the lies and manipulation from those “reputed news outlets”, building up public opinion for unjust wars and barbaric behaviour. How could we have been such an easy prey?
I hear ya; my whole life seems to have been reading news that had been reported by a low-level reporter who got vetted while hiring and her stories all got vetted by the suits, because news has always been a business and you don't report nasty stuff done by some subsidiary of a corporation that either owns your news outlet of spends a lot on ads there.
Still: opinion and "wouldn't it be cool if...?" stories are not news. Without even corporate news we no idea what's really going on in the world; with the "legacy" outlets at least we could get good at reading between the lines.
Absolutely! I used to take pride and even identify with my news outlets (BBC, The Guardian, El País - I’m in Spain - NYT…) and it turns out I was the muppet and my teenagers were getting closer to the truth on TikTok. Some things are changing for the better.
And TikTok will make us even easier prey, but people aren't ready to see that yet.
I guess it’ll make easier prey of those not willing to put any effort into even getting close to the complexities of what’s happening, but it does give those who make an effort direct access to different views of what’s actually happening. Until recently the educated relied on their media for the educated to form their opinion for them. And they were turned into muppets.
Short-form media is inherently more deceptive and less complex, but go ahead and feel pity for me. I'm sure you'll do just fine, you are enjoying it already.
TikTokers are kind of muppets, now that you mention it.
Time for books - more books.
Exactly! Don’t forget academic journals and textbooks! I crave the rigor and data they provide in this age of clickbait and quick dopamine.
This my strategy, as well.
Investigative journalism in Mainstream Media is nonexistent. More than a decade ago they began shedding reporting assets such as the foreign desk, drastically reducing support for in-depth, long-term reporting, and decimating the reporter corps. All for a short-term windfall for their new MBA overlords. Today’s daily newspaper is a withering shell of its former self.
The shedding and consolidating of foreign desks began during Nixon's administration. Just a few at first, almost all of them belonged to newspapers but I remember being shocked when ABC closed its Paris desk.
Right—a lot of their problems predate the internet.
The shedding of the foreign desk was especially damning.
Fair comment. But it's probably a reflection of the collapse in revenues from advertising and, in the case of newspapers and magazines, the sales of their paper editions (although digital subscription revenueshave recovered some of that). It also reflects the fact that our attention spans have collapsed too.
Sure, a media outlet could devote significant resources to research and write in depth stories. But who would have the time and patience to read the finished articles anymore?
Back when I worked for The Denver Post in the early 1990s, the classified section was huge to the paper. The conventional wisdom was that classifieds were known to pay for all day to day operations: printers, pressman, sales reps, all salaries. The display ads were all gravy, just pure profit.
If it’s important you make the time.
You absolutely should, yes. But during this smartphone era, where information is most often presented in de-contextualised 'snippets' - many people are out of the habit of concentrating on single, long form articles for extended periods of time (sometimes I struggle with this as well).
Many - yes. All - no!
During the W43 admin some reporter from the NYT or Wa Po was told by a member of the Admin that the reporter was from "the reality-based community." Even then they sensed 1.) adults, and 2.) terminally clueless children of all ages who only wanted to be told "reality" is what they want it to be.
This was before all the social media and YouTube stuff took off.
The problem to me is: okay, the "legacy media" is dying. But at least those were ADULTS. I don't think 57 year old adolescents like Joe Rogan can be trusted to report on anything that has to do with the meat and potatoes "boring" news stories that nevertheless have bearing on our quality of life. And I should clarify that I'm speaking as a non-rich person who has zero interest in "influencers," being hopelessly olde myself.
There are events in the world that occur that need to be covered by people schooled in basic reporting and journalistic ethics. Then there is: OPINION. Does anyone know the difference? Show of hands?
I get the glee over dinosaurs becoming obsolete, but we still need actual journalists to report on actual news. Who will do this?
ProPublica has provided outstanding investigative journalism for years.
Their coverage includes both local and national stories...they're expanding local coverage in 2025.
As legacy media dies in daylight, subscription fees should be directed towards ProPublica, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Texas Tribune, The Tennessee Holler, and other outlets performing fact-based reporting.
The "actual journalists" are but fluffers to power, Renaissance courtiers but without the colorful outfits.
Julian Assange never printed an untrue word, and was imprisoned for his pains.
I guess the answer is ordinary people. For good and for bad. They can lie too, but you can put one up against the other and actually analyse evidence. A journalist is going to lie to you and you’re going to believe him because she’s a journalist.
I’m less concerned with how this shakes out as far as who is buying what or earning from what, than with how this will continue to destroy politics, shared national culture( or even regional and local culture….what happened to a sense of place??) and a sense of belonging to a shared reality. Does someone who follows Jynxshie or whatever it is even have the same reference for ANYTHING as someone who follows Dan Rather and Heather Richardson? It’s already here as you and Rick Beato so convincingly report with media and I see with my own eyes (and ears). The complete lack of understanding from most of my acquaintance for the need to BUY music, to support people who play an actual instrument, or sing, or drum, rather than twist knobs on a box or play an iPad on stage. Will our cultural hunter gatherer tribalism result in an actual literal political feudalism as people gather around whatever magical thinking anti-science, guru or culture icon who carves out actual space as well as digital space?
Not many people trust the so called mainstream media anymore, they lied about Covid they lied about Biden’s mental health and many other issues, they had just become a mouthpiece for the Democrats and whatever agenda they were pushing, it became difficult to know where the Democrat party starts and the media ends. I’m guessing that when Trump gets sworn in they will suddenly find their backbone again and start questioning the powerful.
I think I saw this from a guest on Bartiromo's show: "I don't call it the "mainstream media" anymore; it's no longer mainstream. I call it "legacy media."
I think he (whomever it was) is onto something.
Super important context you haven't mentioned:
Most -- not all -- of those streamers are generating that content by playing games (KaiCenat even had a popular Elden Ring series, though he is bigger than games).
It's also important to note that one of the main game formats right now is Battle Royale -- a group of players drop into an arena totally equal, rely on chance and skill to gather weapons and survive, and ultimately claim the top prize (e.g. PUBG, Fortnite, etc.). Call of Duty and other FPS games are radically democratic and give young men (and old) a way of testing themselves and achieving in a public space.
As a result of its popularity, gaming is generating big money and engagement. However, it is constantly in conflict with corporate overlords, who don't respect the secret sauce to a compelling game and feel like they have to corrupt their titles with politics by jamming woke / DEI nonsense into everything. Asmongold is one streamer who covers this conflict, pointing out the problems and getting into scraps with supporters of lefty stuff (look up Sweet Baby Inc. for context).
Some AAA games that have integrity have succeeded (e.g. Elden Ring, Astro Bot). Many corporate games have not (look up Concord, anything by Ubisoft including Star Wars: Outlaws, etc.). The losses have been outrageous -- we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, again and again.
And then you have the indie scene, where true magic happens. With very little overhead, a card game called Balatro, developed by a single still-anonymous person called LocalThunk in tandem with a musician and a localizer, has racked up millions of sales and won tons of awards.
I would say that gaming is probably the most important entertainment category right now -- and the least understood by elites. If you aren't playing some kind of game, you are blind to all of this.
So I think your analysis, while smart as hell, could do with some exposure to this side of things. People are playing games because it gives them freedom they have been denied in real life.
Tim - I think another reason for playing games (it's definitely one of mine) is that in games, people have some control over their in-game lives and circumstances. I know that gaming *really* helped me get through 2016-early 2021, although (as a woman) I'm not attracted to the kinds of games you mentioned. I *do* like a number of strategy games, especially when they have a psychological aspect, not just "I'll put my troops here."
Also, Elden Ring is popular with many women who game. I think that there's not nearly enough acknowledgement or acceptance of women gamers *and* devs. I'm not really a gamer per se, but i know women who are.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I didn’t meant to disregard female gamers, and I kinda love that women are into games. (I sometimes watch the Catherine of Sky strategy games channel.) I also find my tastes shifting as I get older. As you get older, once you play enough of one kind of game the novelty wears off and you become more particular and discerning. I’m finding that I like fewer and fewer games as time goes on.
I didn't think that at all! But few people seem to want to acknowledge women in the field - devs, artists, programmers, players, etc. I've been in touch with several women who are part of a studio that I really like, Springloaded. Most of the (very small) staff is Chinese, from Singapore.
I also know a woman who streams on Twitch.
Agree that games deserve more consideration here.
It’s not “new tech” that has enabled solo devs to make excellent titles like Balatro and Animal Well which released this year. IMO it is making something with passion, rather than trying to spend and focus group their way to success.
Tim - THIS
Hold on here.....
Where are these independent streamers getting the news they are commenting on? Someone still has to go out to places and ask people questions and do basic journalistic investigations. The way I see it, what's being hijacked by the streaming influencers is primarily the jobs of the anchors who read the news on camera. Aren't these streamers essentially glorified anchorpeople combined with editorializers? We can't just have a world of anchors and commentators. Someone still has to go get the news in the first place and that's expensive.
It's all good news if you're in the business of amusing people to death in short, addictive chunks.
Don't matter if it's good news or not. It’s a genie that ain't going back into the bottle.
Who or whatever that genie is that ain't going back into the bottle will still need to entertain or divert an audience to build a market. We live in a Market Ruled nation which reduces life and the arts that reflect on the mysteries of life, existence, being, community to competing stimuli. Keep yo eye on da Stimuli! It lies before US....
Tio Mitchito
mainstream celebrity is dead! Hollywood is collapsing, The NBA ratings have gone the way of CNN. The era of freedom of choice in media is upon us. Amen!
Wow - a lot to take in, to think about, to pay attention to as things develop, and to try not to worry too much about, being a totally uninfluencial boomer ... Thank you
Ok, subjective value judgment time. :)
I didn't know who Kai Cenat was, so I looked him up on YouTube and sat through a few minutes of one of his most popular streaming episodes.
My verdict: the video is dumb. So a bunch of young guys stand around, say and do stupid things, and people watch it and comment on it.
God help us all.