General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Internet Must Be Fed Regularly.
Each day, hundreds, if not thousands of would-be commentators get out of bed, check their email, have a cup of coffee or a bag of Cheetos, and then peruse the news. The clever ones actually go to news sources that are actually reporting real news, without commenting on it. The writers at those actual news sources are just going to bed, mostly. They've been up late running down facts. The lamer would-be commentators go looking on their favorite blogs and news aggregators and read what they find there.
Then, in unison, they post something...somewhere. Some, who are more or less well known by a following they've created over a few years, have their own blogs. Others, depending on their own prominence, or lack of same, post on various websites that cater to non-writing news addicts. They must do this. It is an imperative for them.
What they post depends on their own point of view and prejudices and their skills or lack of same as wordsmiths. When they're done, they head to Starbucks or wherever, and buy a grande something or another, knowing that they've spread their opinion of what was real news far and wide. Some are paid, and some are hoping to get paid at some time in the future. All have egos that need daily stroking.
Later during the day, they go searching on Google to see the results of their writings. The clever ones find many links on the Google results pages for the titles of their various meanderings. Others, less talented or less well known, are happy with one or two links to their timeless prose.
Where do the links come from? They come from a wide variety of blogs, websites, and discussion forums, where their faithful followers post their musings verbatim on their own favorite Internet haunts. In most cases, those followers merely post the original writer's words without much or any comment. Then, those tertiary posters of the wisdom or lack of same on the part of the secondary writers sit and watch to see whether their efforts receive plaudits or slams. In either case, they rejoin the commentary and comment on the comments.
This is the Internet. Somewhere, there is someone who attended the press briefing, did the groundwork, actually interviewed people, and sought out the basic information and reported it. Their work is read and fragments of it are used by the secondary and tertiary Internet posters to make whatever point those posters wish to make. Rarely is their work re-posted verbatim. Instead, it is ground up into a mush of factoids and ersatz analysis by the secondary posters. The tertiary posters muddle this mess into something completely unrecognizable, since they do not understand what they are posting in the first place. In the meantime, the links to the actual original reporting are lost somehow, making it very difficult to find actual information.
And then there are the readers. Most have a well-established point of view on whatever interests them, and they seek out whatever can be found that supports that point of view. When they find it, they join whatever discussion is ongoing and say, loudly, "Right on!" "You suck!" or whatever generational affirmations or denigrations they know. Their opinion is confirmed. That is what matters.
A few lonely Internet users go looking for the original reporting. They go to multiple sources and compare what has been reported. They wait, if necessary, for additional information to become available. Once there is enough information and enough time has passed, they form their own, unique opinion of whatever issue is of interest. Typically, they keep those opinions to themselves.
What is this post? It is my musings. It is my opinion. I'm done with the Internet for the day. I've spent a lot of time on it today, and am going to go and rest. Tomorrow, I'll be back, trying to sort out the truth from the opinions for my own education. See you then!
longship
(40,416 posts)There was a time I lived where that was possible. Not now, though.
Today, I come to DU to find out what's happening. I occasionally post a new thread but don't expect any huge response. I make brief responses in support of threads which are informative, insightful, or entertaining. Sometimes a post will get my knickers in a bunch and I may post a reply, hopefully with respect.
I avoid all Net wars here where two or more posters go back and forth ad nauseum. Nothing good ever comes of that. When I get involved in such things, I get out when I see that there is no gain in continuing. Usually this happens with those toxic ideological topics here. Guns, for instance.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, MM.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)With nary a climax in sight.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Thanks for your opinion.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)If you keep reading DU, you'll see lots of opinions, including mine from time to time.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)You can eat as much of it as you like.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)People should eat more salads, I think.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Chinese whispers[1] (or telephone in the United States[2]) is a game played around the world, in which one person whispers a message to another, which is passed through a line of people until the last player announces the message to the entire group. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first. Reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, and that some players may deliberately alter what is being said in order to guarantee a changed message by the end of it.
The game is often played by children as a party game or in the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[2] or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)played. Thanks!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)in the extreme. The Internet doesn't care whether what it eats is good for it, true food, or old plastic bags that have been reused. Its gaping maw is always open. Just feed it. It doesn't care.
The problem is that, like other organisms, what it eats gets processed and then a good portion of it is excreted as smelly, disgusting waste. We should all be carrying around plastic bags to dispose of that.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)It also eats perfectly good ideas and information. It's all part of its enormous consumption. Those good things exist for those who access the Internet, too, but it's like picking through a garbage dump in search of valuable items that have been discarded. It's messy, smelly, and it gets your hands dirty. It's worth it, though.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I am reminded of this post of mine:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=305087
What would we do without search engines?
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Search engines are great. A lot of Internet users, though, use them in a very limited way, rather than skillfully. That's unfortunate, and I wish Google and the other search engines offered better learning tools for getting the most from them. The information is there, but few people bother to learn effective search strategies.