[_Algernon_]

>Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media

This is just plain wrong. Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. That is not an improvement.

[PittleyDunkin]

> Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter.

I mean it's not like the power of domestic propaganda has waned, it's just in a war for the attention of the ignorant with other interests (most of which aren't foreign powers, by the way, but simply capital). Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room and it would be a true loss for any society to sweep the rug out from under the people who care to look beyond the for-profit newsroom (i.e., almost all media that's readily accessible at least to americans).

[bigfudge]

> Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room

I'm not actually sure that's true. The only reliable sources on social media (in the sense of 'usually not horribly wrong') are actually traditional media companies like bbc, guardian. Perhaps I'm holding it wrong, but finding other trustworthy sources is actually really hard...

[belorn]

If there is one single reliable fact that I wish was repeated more often in this kind of discussions is that news papers and media companies will cater to the demographics of their core audience. Left, right, center, young, old, male, female, city, rural, and so on. Consumers will self select towards publishers which they agree with, and publishers will cater to that which more reliable generates revenue and views.

Meta studies often illustrate this well, but one can also do this on an individual level. Seek up reliable sources which opposing core audience compared to ones own demographic and it becomes obvious how horribly wrong they seem with miss leading statements, omissions, weasel words, emotional labeled meanings, mixed with with straight falsehoods.

The only trustworthy sources are multiple sources, and even then we are likely to fail since we are going to be searching for confirmation of what we already believe to be true. Social media do not usually help here, through Wikipedia seems to be a fairly good starting point (especially the talk pages are good to see where different reliable sources disagrees the most).

[alxlaz]

This is especially untrue today, when reaching a wide, relevant audience requires significant resources, including financial -- either outright paying for sponsored places at the top of people's timelines, or paying for the expertise that delivers the right content to the right people in the right formulation.

There's obviously still room for exceptions (especially in small niches, where individual content creators can still make a dent) but this isn't 2006 anymore. The vast majority of the content that covers social, political or economic issues on social media platforms is paid for and pushed by directly interested parties (political parties, companies etc.) with ample funding and is often part of campaigns that span both social media and traditional media. The "indie" outlook is part of the packaging.

The terms of the "paid by" disclaimers are sufficiently generous that they're all but useless once you get past things like goodie bags for influencers or regulated campaign ads.

[PittleyDunkin]

> Perhaps I'm holding it wrong, but finding other trustworthy sources is actually really hard...

Yes, it is hard, but there's no such thing as easy trust, and you should always be questioning whether such trust is actually earned or just comforting.

I don't think the "bbc" or "the guardian" are very trustworthy, either (at least by themselves)—both have obvious polemics and blind spots. They also only cover a very narrow, western-centric view of the world, leaving you with piss-poor understanding of world politics. I'm not saying you should ignore them but they're still propaganda.

Substack is invaluable; blogs are invaluable; twitter, as miserable as it is, is invaluable (for direct access to reporters sans newsrooms, if nothing else).

[EraYaN]

They are not propaganda in the classic sense since that requires intent and a goal.

[PittleyDunkin]

Sorry, why do you believe these entities have no intent nor goals? That's a very odd assumption to make.

As always, I highly recommend Manufacturing Consent, which well illustrates how to examine financial interests to determine the above. Propaganda does not require conspiracy nor explicit instructions on what messages to convey; it only requires a class of people produced from the same environment, aiming to reproduce that same environment.

[blitzar]

> illustrates how to examine financial interests to determine the above

On this basis we have to exclude all "citizen jounalists" as unreliable click bait at best or just plain manufactured news.