And the need for investigative journalism.
We live in a world where only those stories with the necessary attributes to successfully pass through the ideological funnel of legacy mass media (LMM) platforms are permitted to be discussed in polite society.
Indicators:
1) The use of derogatory and ambiguous epithets that function to shut down further discussion or investigation of a topic.
Some common examples include “conspiracy theorist,” “climate change denier,” or “anti-vaxxer.”
As soon as an individual becomes brandished with one of these vague, meaningless epithets, anything they subsequently say is considered suspicious and untrustworthy. Even if the weight of the evidence as this individual sees it would suggest their view being more reflective of reality than the opposing view, because one of these epithets has been hurled their way, the burden of proof is now on them to justify their heterodox position. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, were it not for the second-order effect of these derogatory epithets.
2) The impulse to self-censor.
Despite the weight of the evidence favouring an alternative view, the fear of being tarnished with one of these epithets causes people to withhold voicing their concerns.
Instead of calmly, and dispassionately laying out the evidence as they see it, an individual will stop themselves from voicing their heterodox opinion because of the effect these epithets have on them personally. That effect being their unjustified dismissal by those around them, and the subsequent feeling of being ostracised.
No matter how much evidence there is for some alternative view, as soon as one of these epithets tarnishes an individual, anything they subsequently say is ignored, or used against them to dismiss them.
At base, what makes this suppressive force so pernicious is a play on human psychology. Namely, the fear of being ostracised from an in-group. It forces people to conform to the restricted range of discussable topics permitted by it, despite the weight of the evidence suggesting the alternative view might be more reflective of reality.
The reason why I’m keen on independent investigative journalism is to be independent of the pernicious effects of this force that functions to determine what can, and cannot be said.
My Problem with Content Creators
Creators tend to fall prey to a similar kind of suppressive force. Although it differs from the one encountered by journalists, its function is similar in that it forces the creator to tailor their message to the liking of this force, such that it breaks through the gate-keeping and can be heard.
The gate-keepers for content creators are the social media (SM) platforms. As opposed to the LMM platforms journalist are subject to.
Some indicators for the suppressive force at work on content creators are:
1) Audience capture, which stems from the politicisation of topics by the LMM platforms.
With audience capture comes an ever-increasing one-sidedness and partial analyses to confirm the bias of the audience in question. And, therefore, hold their attention.
2) An unwillingness to broach those topics not permitted to be discussed on LMM platforms.
You would think the internet is a space where free speech reigns supreme, and everything is on the table for discussion. But the pernicious effects of this suppressive force inhibit the discussion of these topics, even on the internet.
3) Allowing economic incentives determine the type of content created.
This might look like creating content that seeks to maximise views (which, in turn, opens up opportunities for sponsorship and ad revenue,) in which case it’s similar to audience capture. But it too results in partial analyses.
4) Sensationalism.
This too applies to the LMM gate-keeping. Content creators who sensationalise their message inevitably steer away from the more mundane, complex message they originally set out to convey.
Before we get all conspiratorial about this (as though that’s inherently a bad thing!) the suppressive force that causes an individual to tailor their message in such a way that it no longer resembles what they had originally set out to say could be as benign and impersonal as following economic incentives.
Conclusion
The moral of this particular story is as follows:
It is incumbent upon us as individuals, as citizens of this fine earth, to create a community of people and an environment wherein stories that would otherwise be instantly rejected by this suppressive force can be heard.
Unless we viscerally feel this as an obligation, the nonsense stories that pollute our information ecology will continue to proliferate.