Legacy media is no longer “the medium” and their messaging is becoming irrelevant

December 21, 2024

It seems that data (based on circulation numbers versus subscribers or followers) shows clearly that legacy media is no longer “the medium” and consequently cannot carry the message. The recent US Presidential election being a case in point. Marshall McLuhan’s thesis that the “medium is the message” is in fact being confirmed as the medium shifts.

Legacy media – probably as a reaction to the internet and social media – has abandoned all traces of impartiality and has adopted blatant biases as a misguided way of stemming at least some of the waves who are abandoning them. I had great respect once for, among others, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, The Times of India, The Hindu, Reuters, AP, El Pais, Le Monde, der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, and even NHK. Not any more. They are now part of the legacy media I consider irreversibly corrupted by their bias. The bias is most evident in the political arena but has now seeped into their coverage of sports and the arts. I see that the LA Times which was even more blatantly biased is now trying to shift direction but it is not likely to be very successful.

Legacy media will no doubt struggle on but they will all only struggle on to bankruptcy. They are now as obsolete as roaming bards, town criers or wall news-sheets. Legacy print media is going downhill fastest but even broadcast TV for messaging is dying.

ktwop:

The decline in circulation numbers for traditional print media, coupled with the rise of digital subscriptions and social media followings, strongly supports the idea that legacy media is dying. This shift directly relates to Marshall McLuhan’s famous assertion that “the medium is the message.”

The reasons can be broken down as follows:

  • Changing Consumption Habits: People are increasingly getting their news and information from digital sources. This includes online news websites, social media platforms, blogs, and podcasts. This shift in consumption habits directly impacts the reach and influence of legacy media.
  • The Medium Shapes the Message:McLuhan argued that the medium through which a message is conveyed is as important, if not more important, than the message itself. The format of a newspaper, with its structured layout and focus on in-depth articles, creates a different experience than scrolling through a Twitter feed or watching a short video on TikTok.
  • Digital Media’s Advantages: Digital media offers several advantages over traditional media, including:
    • Accessibility: Information is readily available on various devices and platforms.
    • Interactivity: Readers can engage with content through comments, shares, and likes.
    • Immediacy:News can be disseminated quickly and efficiently.
    • Personalization: Algorithms can tailor content to individual preferences.

As a consequence and as their audience shrinks, legacy media outlets are drastically losing their ability to shape public discourse.  Social media influencers and online personalities are shaping the conversations as they build large and engaged followings. People are increasingly getting their news from different sources, leading to fragmented audiences. Very often their sources are their own echo chambers and can reinforce existing biases.

The data clearly indicates a shift in media consumption, with digital platforms taking center stage. This shift validates McLuhan’s thesis, highlighting the profound impact of the medium on how messages are received and interpreted. 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Media, Politics | Comments Off on Legacy media is no longer “the medium” and their messaging is becoming irrelevant

US Presidential voting – Black women appear the most racist voters

December 19, 2024

The numbers usually tell the tale.

You don’t have to be an expert psephologist to be able to read the numbers (and of course most expert psephologists have been proven not just to be wrong but remarkably so. Prof Allan Lichtman being the unedifying example of one such unable to acknowledge his own mistakes and his ignorance).

What the exit poll numbers show quite conclusively in the US Presidential election is that black men (77/21), all blacks (86/13) and black women in particular (92/8) voted along racial lines. No other ethnic group comes close to this one-sided voting pattern. Of course there are other nuances here that do not surface through the raw numbers. Nevertheless the numbers are not wrong.

Among all other ethnic groups votes were reasonably well distributed and both candidates received over one third of the votes. Certainly the Latino vote was not skewed towards the Democrats as I had first thought it would be. However sometime before the election I realised that illegal immigration is seen very negatively by legal immigrants, both for the economic space they occupy in the country and for the threat the illegals pose to the social standing of the legal immigrants. Only among native American Indians was there a clear preference (68/31 but far from overwhelming) for one candidate (a little surprisingly for the Republicans). It seems the Democrats are no longer the party of choice for Latinos or blue collar workers.

The exit poll results suggests strongly that in practice blacks in the US – and black women in particular – are now probably the most racist ethnic groups, at least with regard to who they vote for.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on US Presidential voting – Black women appear the most racist voters

“Misgendering” is an artificial and nonsensical concept

December 16, 2024

“Misgender” is an artificially created word but it is a nonsense word (a la Edward Lear) which has been assigned a meaning which I shall show is unreal. It has been created to fit the woke fantasies and is an unnecessary word. “To misgender” (verb) means to assign a gender to someone (male or female) which does not match the desired gender of that someone. This is impossible in practice. Suppose person A perceives person B to be male and refers to person B as male. Person B – irrespective of whether actually male or female – wishes to be perceived as female and screams to high heaven that “she” is being “misgendered”. Person A has no interest or use for the word. Person B – if truly female – feels no great insult. Only if person B is actually a male, but who desires to be perceived as female (or vice versa), does that person take umbrage. Yet it is person B who is responsible and therefore liable for how he/she is perceived by others. The fault lies always with person B.

The artificial concept of “misgendering” is nonsensical because it rests on the utterly mistaken fantasy that a person may choose which gender to be. There is a tiny fraction of people (0.02%) who are born with physical aberrations which makes their gender truly ambiguous. There are a few (perhaps 1% of births) where mental aberrations lead to people genuinely believing they ought to be the other gender than they are. There are still others who are brain washed into believing likewise and some who pretend to that belief to get attention.

We need to start with identity.

I take the identity of a “thing” to be that which distinguishes that thing from every other thing in our universe.

The identity of any “thing” in our universe is then given by any unique combination of parameters that can distinguish it from all other things. These parameters can vary depending on the nature of the thing:

  • Physical Things:
    • Atomic Level: Spatial and temporal coordinates, quantum state, and isotopic composition.
    • Macroscopic Objects: Spatial and temporal coordinates, mass, shape, chemical composition, and other physical properties.
  • Concepts and Abstractions:
    • Concepts: Definition, authorship, relationship to other concepts, and cultural context.
    • Abstract Objects: Mathematical properties, logical axioms, and formal definitions.
  • Living Things:
    • Biological Parameters: Genetic code, species, developmental stage, and physiological state.
    • Spatial and Temporal Parameters: Location and time of existence.

A human’s DNA is pretty well frozen at or soon after conception. Chromosomes and gender are fixed then – forever. A human’s unique identity in the universe is also determined at this time – forever. That unique identity persists, in fact, even after death. The probability of a particular human DNA sequence having ever existed or ever appearing again is vanishingly small.

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs. Each base pair can be one of four nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G). The likelihood of two individuals having identical DNA is extremely small, with estimates around 1 in 10^480000. This is an incredibly small number, essentially zero. Even considering the entire history of humanity and potential future generations, the chance of another person having the exact same DNA sequence as you is practically zero.

Humans often use other descriptors (name, physical attributes, occupation, ….) as part of their identity but these are just descriptors, adjectives, and not unique identifying parameters. Professions or occupations such as a lawyer or a doctor are descriptions and not strictly about identity. A descriptor may sometimes also be convenient as a supporting identifier, but is never sufficient on its own for identity. Descriptors may change during a person’s life or only apply for a short time. In the case of humans such descriptors are redundant for identity because something much more immutable is available in the form of a DNA sequence. What is absolutely clear is that an individual human cannot choose or change identity. They can certainly change and develop and gain descriptors during their lifetimes. They can change their skills and their jobs and their hair style and their weight and their appearance. They can even pretend to be other than they are. They cannot, though, change sex and they cannot change gender. They cannot choose their identity. They are who they are and not who they wish to be. They cannot ever change the DNA sequence they are born with. They may undergo all manner of treatment or therapy or surgery but their DNA remains unchanged.

It has become fashionable in the current age of woke hysteria to claim to be a victim of “misgendering”. (These are among the most cringe-inducing claims possible). It is a very artificial and awkward word and is a part of modern wokery. It is a verb based on the noun “gender”. But “misgendering” claims are all nonsense claims. When somebody is not perceived to be the gender they claim to be, it is always their own fault and their own responsibility. How one is perceived is not the responsibility of the perceiver but of the perceived. The remedy for an “erroneous” perception lies with the perceived not with the perceiver. There are indeed a few people who are genuinely transgender. They are clearly suffering from a mental condition in believing they are a different gender. They need medical and psychological support. But they are not usually the ones screeching about being misgendering victims. The majority of the self-proclaimed victims of “misgendering” are delusional or brainwashed. They are those who imagine and/or claim to be transgender in a desperate quest for attention. The worst of these attention-seekers are usually the ones who also whine loudest about being victims of “misgendering”.

Victims of “misgendering” have only themselves to blame for being perceived to be the gender they do not wish to be perceived as. Pretending to be the gender that you are not, does not help. You cannot impose your delusions about yourself to be the perceptions of others.

The reality is that only you can “misgender” yourself.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on “Misgendering” is an artificial and nonsensical concept

A return to family values is an existential necessity

December 5, 2024

The declining global fertility rate has many causes but the backdrop which enables medicine and contraception and family planning and abortion and government policy to have the effects they do, is the decline in the importance of the family. It is the side-lining of “family values” which is manifested now in so many women not wishing to have children. Not having children has been seen as a kind of emancipation. But, as Japan and many other countries are now finding it is also why the loneliness of the aged (men and women) is increasing so rapidly. Over half of all Japanese women now living, it is said, will never experience having children. The number of men so afflicted is harder to estimate but is thought to be a little higher. The period in China when the one child policy was enforced is also having its impact as families have been discouraged. Loneliness with age is the new normal.

The over-population problem is effectively over. However, the species needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman to maintain a stable population. A population implosion has now started and is gaining speed. The cold hand of demographics means that to change current trends will take many generations. Within the next 50 years – and this is inevitable – every country in the world will have a birth rate below the replenishment level and will have a declining population. Parts of Europe have been mitigating the loss of births by immigration but even immigrant fertility rates drop within two generations to the country average.

A return to giving a higher value to “family values” is an existential necessity. Probably we have about 100 years or so to avoid a catastrophic population collapse. 

Replenishment level is 2.1

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Ageing, Behaviour, Demographics | Comments Off on A return to family values is an existential necessity

Woke rebranding – Disney/Jaguar mishmash

December 4, 2024

It has become a freaky world.

There seems to be a new “go woke, go broke” story every day. The Jaguar and Disney stories are like phlegm which persists forever.

Jaguar touts “copy nothing” but copies Rolls Royce among others. There were pink Ferraris long before that. The shape is similar to some old Chevys. As an old friend who is a Jaguar fanatic put it “It’s just embarrassing”. It is not going to help Tata Motors or the Tata brand very much either.

Disney has just gone mad. A Snow White who is not white. A spoilt brat actress who is not very fair and who is more hateful than the evil queen. Zegler is a real liability for Disney with very few saving graces. And dwarves who are not dwarves!!!

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Automobiles, Trivia | Comments Off on Woke rebranding – Disney/Jaguar mishmash

Does Jaguar’s rebrand target a new customer base?

November 27, 2024

Jaguar – will no longer, apparently, represent the silent, lithe, sleek, powerful predator that the cat species panthera onca is. (60 years ago the E-type was my forever dream car – even against the DB-5. Then I grew up).

The new woke rebranding apparently has different target customers in mind.

Note that the target is the older men or women who attract younger men!

Enough Jaguar wokery now.

Time to move on.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Automobiles | Comments Off on Does Jaguar’s rebrand target a new customer base?

Jaguar wokery explained

November 25, 2024

Adrian Mardell is the CEO of JLR and has received woke awards before.

He is looking for a new award it seems.

Jaguar -sh(e)/it

BE NOTHING!

Seems rather insecure.

Is he so worried that he may be taken for a she/her or an it?

Morse would not be amused.

Jaguar has long been associated with the likes of Inspector Morse (as played by John Thaw, above) - rarely seen without his iconic Mk2

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Jaguar wokery explained

Jaguar’s woke rebranding fiasco

November 23, 2024

Woke debacle Jaguar versus Volvo

This is what a Jaguar ought to be

Tags:
Posted in Trivia | Comments Off on Jaguar’s woke rebranding fiasco

Science cannot reach the places where gods are conceived

November 19, 2024

This post is as an addendum to an earlier post:

Atheism (old or new) lacks “oomph”

The domain of science

There are many questions that science cannot even address, let alone, answer. The process we call “science” starts with many fundamental assumptions (existence and causality for example). Clearly the needs of what we take to be logic require that any field of thought (science in this case) can not penetrate or address its own founding assumptions. It would seem that space, time, matter, energy, life and consciousness are also such assumptions. The scientific method, while incredibly powerful, is inherently limited by its foundational assumptions. Questions like the existence of reality itself, the nature of consciousness, or the ultimate origin of the universe are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. There are other areas that science cannot directly address:

  • The laws of logic: While science relies on logic to draw conclusions, it cannot prove the validity of logic itself.
  • The uniformity of nature: The assumption that natural laws are consistent across space and time is fundamental to scientific investigation, but it cannot be proven.
  • The objectivity of observation: Science assumes that observations can be made objectively, but human perception and interpretation can introduce biases. All human observations are ultimately subjective.
  • The existence of an external world: While we experience the world as real, the nature of reality itself is a philosophical question that science cannot definitively answer.

Mysteries and unanswerable questions lead to the invention of gods and supernatural beings by humans.  Initially they are just labels for the answers to the unanswerable questions. (Of course they are later imbued with human characteristics, supernatural powers, families and expanded regions of influence).  The process we call science, though, does not (can not) address the unanswerable questions. Setting science and the gods in opposition is incorrect in logic and in reason. Claiming that “science denies gods” or that “gods are unscientific” are statements that are invalid. Science seeks to explain the natural world through empirical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. Science simply operates within its own framework, and it doesn’t have the tools to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. Religion addresses questions of meaning, purpose, and the supernatural, which often lie beyond the domain of scientific inquiry.  

Gods can only be imagined, conceived of and invented in those domains where science cannot reach.

The invention of gods

It is my contention that while philosophers (thinkers) may have formulated the mysteries which then could only be “solved” by the invention of a god, that it was politically motivated groups (possibly the earliest priests) who used such gods to create religions as a social control tool. So it seems probable that the invention of gods preceded the invention of religions (though gods are not always needed by religions). The invention of gods likely stemmed from a combination of factors:

  1. Humans abhor the unknown: Humans, ever since they became human, have sought explanations for all they couldn’t understand. Gods were labels for the answers to the unanswerable. They provided answers to the impossible questions like “Why does the sun rise?”, “Why does it rain?” or “Where do we go after death?”
  2. Social Control: Gods and their supernatural powers were used to justify and establish social norms and laws. Disobeying divine rules could lead to just punishment, both in this life and the afterlife.
  3. Creating a social “we”: Shared beliefs in gods fostered a sense of unity and belonging within communities. Rituals and ceremonies centered around gods strengthened social bonds.
  4. As a means of explaining and withstanding loss and suffering: Gods or purported sins against the gods could justify and explain misfortune and suffering as divine tests or punishments.  They provided a sense of purpose and meaning.
  5. As a crutch giving hope and comfort: Gods were used as a vehicle of hope for a better future, both in this life and the afterlife. They provided comfort and solace in times of hardship.

In essence, gods served as a powerful tool for explaining the unexplainable, maintaining social order, creating communities and providing psychological comfort.

It is not implausible that it was early thinkers, or shamans, who pondered existential questions and proposed supernatural explanations. However, it is likely that creating religious institutions, was a political exercise with political objectives. The leaders probably acquired status as priests, and they structured beliefs and narratives into formal or organized religions and used them primarily for social control.

While some might argue that the spiritual benefits of religion are merely a byproduct or a marketing strategy, there is no doubt that many religions offer genuine solace, meaning, and purpose. Religion may have originated as a tool for social control, but it has evolved into something much more complex over time. The origin and evolution of gods and religions requires much more space than I have here. But the key point for this post is that gods were invented because explanations for the great mysteries were sought and could not be found.

Different domains

Ultimately science and gods operate in separate domains. Science operates in the constrained world of what can be observed empirically and where foundational assumptions apply. The invention of gods is always in response to some question or mystery that science cannot address.  Of course, imbuing gods – who are merely labels for the unanswerable – with human or superhuman characteristics is nothing but literary (fictional) license. The problem often arises in that such fictions are taken literally. Others interpret scientific findings as weapons to challenge or deny certain religious beliefs. But strictly they live on different planes in different worlds. The bottom line is that science cannot tread in the places where its unanswerable questions led to the invention of the gods. And the gods cannot exist in the domains where science is constrained to hold sway.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science | 2 Comments »

10 facts (reasons) why the Democrats lost

November 12, 2024

  1. Legal immigrants dislike illegals.

  2. Girls are not safe with men in girls changing rooms.

  3. You are who you are, not who you think you are.

  4. Making things is what grows an economy.

  5. Small businesses grow jobs.

  6. Being Latino/Asian/Black does not necessarily mean being stupid and woke.

  7. Democrats cause inflation.

  8. Democrats cause high taxes.

  9. Democrats prolong wars.

  10. The NYT is irrelevant.

Tags:
Posted in Politics, Trivia | Comments Off on 10 facts (reasons) why the Democrats lost

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »