Apr 21, 2023·edited Apr 21, 2023Liked by Berny Belvedere
This article is a good articulation of the perils of audience capture. Kudos!
I’d say, however, for a fuller epistemology of contemporary discourse, some other things should be discussed adjacent to this critique:
1) We need to differentiate between values and knowledge. There are many complicated things involved in the construction of knowledge, so I wouldn’t want to be too reductive on this point, but at the surface, at least, knowledge is a neutral representation of reality. Values are not and can never be neutral, nor are they really concerned with representation as such; values are about our aspirations, actions, feelings. This idea of “belief” tends to conflate these two things, where what we value is construed as a kind of highly contingent knowledge, or vice versa. “I believe X” is often a statement of identity, not of comprehension, and it is not really expected to be a conscientious representation of X. In journalism, the segregation of “hard news” and “opinion” or “analysis” writing, in some ways, gets at this difference, but I don’t think there’s enough emphasis on the dialectic as a deep cognitive and epistemological phenomenon.
2) The world is always changing and humans change with it. Our understanding of the world can always be improved. Because of these two facts, we need “discourse” which is not merely not-false, but ideas that are, simultaneously, new and apposite to the present state of the world. A “balanced” re-hash of stuff that has been kicked around for centuries, however nominally accurate, is not sufficient for a healthy media culture, if that’s all there is. It is very challenging to be original and insightful, and so we can’t expect that these moments of clarity and discovery will come from everyone producing content; rather writers should be seeking out to report about what’s new out there in culture if they don’t have the talent and inspiration to be truly original. Sometimes I wonder if our poverty of ideas, or, at least, a concerted discomfort with anything fresh and imaginative, is as much a catalyst for tribalism as the base instincts usually posited.
3) A complement to audience capture is contrarianism, where the person spouting vicious nonsense actually believes what he is saying, and is not performing his supposed beliefs for status or money. These people may only be “tribal” in a provisional sense, gleefully ditching their affiliations at the first sign of dissension. Does Glenn Greenwald need to be pro-Russian asshole hack of a writer to pay his way in the world? Maybe? But he also just might be a resentful, disagreeable asshole down at his core, fully immersed in all the shit he writes, in which the case, the only reason he isn’t a full-on crank is that his flair appeals to a mass of other, similar assholes out there in the ether.
I think this was a great take on what it means to be an actually independent thinker, observer and commentator. Probably going to hang onto this for a while, re-read it now and then, just as a reminder as I go about forming my own opinions and sometimes tossing them around in places like this. May not help a sometimes-lazy intellect like mine, but it sure as hell won't hurt. Big fat props on this one.
Just one thought here...I hate it when folks like you refer to their "followers" as *followers*!!
I realize the 'technical' correctness and utility of the word, and for the life of me can't think of a better one, save maybe 'subscribers' or 'readers' in the narrow case of a publication like this. But that doesn't work as a catch-all when you include social media, pods, etc. any better than something like 'audience' or 'readership' and the like. So, I guess folks like you are stuck with 'followers'. It just has a smack of cultishness to it that I find a bit distasteful. NBD, I guess. Just a small nit I couldn't resist the urge to pick in a small act of being "true to myself." :-D
I totally get it. Someone like Jesus can be said to have disciples and followers, but we just have people who occasionally read and listen to what we write and say. It seems undeservedly lofty and culty, like you said, to use "followers." I think it's just a part of Twitter culture. I frequently use that as a meme template, as in, "My followers when I tweet about x" juxtaposed with a funny pic or something. I get your point, though.
I'm not on social media like Twitter or FB, but it's probably its use vis a vie that milieu that has kind of 'ruined' the word for me personally. Still, it's better than most of its synonyms. 'Fans', for instance.
This article is a good articulation of the perils of audience capture. Kudos!
I’d say, however, for a fuller epistemology of contemporary discourse, some other things should be discussed adjacent to this critique:
1) We need to differentiate between values and knowledge. There are many complicated things involved in the construction of knowledge, so I wouldn’t want to be too reductive on this point, but at the surface, at least, knowledge is a neutral representation of reality. Values are not and can never be neutral, nor are they really concerned with representation as such; values are about our aspirations, actions, feelings. This idea of “belief” tends to conflate these two things, where what we value is construed as a kind of highly contingent knowledge, or vice versa. “I believe X” is often a statement of identity, not of comprehension, and it is not really expected to be a conscientious representation of X. In journalism, the segregation of “hard news” and “opinion” or “analysis” writing, in some ways, gets at this difference, but I don’t think there’s enough emphasis on the dialectic as a deep cognitive and epistemological phenomenon.
2) The world is always changing and humans change with it. Our understanding of the world can always be improved. Because of these two facts, we need “discourse” which is not merely not-false, but ideas that are, simultaneously, new and apposite to the present state of the world. A “balanced” re-hash of stuff that has been kicked around for centuries, however nominally accurate, is not sufficient for a healthy media culture, if that’s all there is. It is very challenging to be original and insightful, and so we can’t expect that these moments of clarity and discovery will come from everyone producing content; rather writers should be seeking out to report about what’s new out there in culture if they don’t have the talent and inspiration to be truly original. Sometimes I wonder if our poverty of ideas, or, at least, a concerted discomfort with anything fresh and imaginative, is as much a catalyst for tribalism as the base instincts usually posited.
3) A complement to audience capture is contrarianism, where the person spouting vicious nonsense actually believes what he is saying, and is not performing his supposed beliefs for status or money. These people may only be “tribal” in a provisional sense, gleefully ditching their affiliations at the first sign of dissension. Does Glenn Greenwald need to be pro-Russian asshole hack of a writer to pay his way in the world? Maybe? But he also just might be a resentful, disagreeable asshole down at his core, fully immersed in all the shit he writes, in which the case, the only reason he isn’t a full-on crank is that his flair appeals to a mass of other, similar assholes out there in the ether.
Excellent stuff here, Jeffrey
I think this was a great take on what it means to be an actually independent thinker, observer and commentator. Probably going to hang onto this for a while, re-read it now and then, just as a reminder as I go about forming my own opinions and sometimes tossing them around in places like this. May not help a sometimes-lazy intellect like mine, but it sure as hell won't hurt. Big fat props on this one.
Just one thought here...I hate it when folks like you refer to their "followers" as *followers*!!
I realize the 'technical' correctness and utility of the word, and for the life of me can't think of a better one, save maybe 'subscribers' or 'readers' in the narrow case of a publication like this. But that doesn't work as a catch-all when you include social media, pods, etc. any better than something like 'audience' or 'readership' and the like. So, I guess folks like you are stuck with 'followers'. It just has a smack of cultishness to it that I find a bit distasteful. NBD, I guess. Just a small nit I couldn't resist the urge to pick in a small act of being "true to myself." :-D
I totally get it. Someone like Jesus can be said to have disciples and followers, but we just have people who occasionally read and listen to what we write and say. It seems undeservedly lofty and culty, like you said, to use "followers." I think it's just a part of Twitter culture. I frequently use that as a meme template, as in, "My followers when I tweet about x" juxtaposed with a funny pic or something. I get your point, though.
I'm not on social media like Twitter or FB, but it's probably its use vis a vie that milieu that has kind of 'ruined' the word for me personally. Still, it's better than most of its synonyms. 'Fans', for instance.
Look forward to the next Belvyland.
Very kind of you to say. Feeling is mutual.