A story of two opposing information forces:
The format of this document will have headings for particular subjects and cover each relevant analysis for ease of reading.
*for wider access I will use general terms. such as *media *information *Internet *balance
* this document can be viewed as opinion an analysis.
We are talking about the same two forces that have existed since that start of the “decentralization era” as humanity will more than likely call the era and period from the late 1999 onwards.
The two opposing forces in this case of course are:
- centralized media.
- decentralized media.
Lets very quickly explain what decentralized media is as opposed to centralized media:
Media that is owned by a corporation or a state, i.e it is owned by large corporations, funded by banks or owned by a state sponsor like the Russian Federation or the USA government. all TV media is generally centralized, if a TV media has an Internet source for its primary source, it can be “semi-decentralized”.
Media that is not owned or funded primarily by a corporation or a state, this is the many many types of information that exist on the Internet and in any other form of generally decentralized format, decentralized media is generally self funded.
Both forms of media aim to build consensus that is to say they both have a “generally accepted view” that they head towards to find balance.
In the case of a major event like the Ukrainian situation, sometimes both types of media can over shoot that balance with both imperfect information and exuberance.
So lets analyze each major aspect of the event, and from in my perspective and opinion where each miscalculated the general overall “balance”.
The Russian President:
The Russian president was hailed a little bit as a super hero in some semi-centralized media and also in some decentralized media, I don’t think this is an accurate view based on the evidence.
if we look at the event based on any of many parameters its just what would happen, for example if from a strategic perspective there was such a disruption in the same way with the same specific parameters on the doorstep of any significant super power equipped nation the effect would likely be very much the same.
Of course centralized media has an aim to keep many of the details of that event unknown, it is only in doing this that they can try to effectively “shift reality” and claim that the Russian President is doing something outside what would be the normal response for the situation given all the details; historical, strategic and otherwise.
This attempt to “shift reality” is centralized media’s significant and ongoing weakness.
whereas some decentralized media sees this and hails the Russian President a hero for doing what he most definitely would have done in any case, as would any independent US president in the same situation.
The Russian President is not a hero for doing something that he would have done anyhow, which is also his mandate to protect Russian citizens, just as the US President has the same mandate, both to a degree implement it.
The US president
The US president was painted by some of the most Centralized media as in some way “weak” because he did not react irrationally to an event that if he was presented with he would have acted the same, under any protocol that exists.
The decentralized media was mostly silent on the subject, apart from their exuberance to try to paint the Russian president as heroic in some aspects.
The US president seems to have reacted how would be expected for protocol I believe that balance will be found in the aspects around the normality in which the event was handled, this will be in retrospect.
It has to be mentioned that the US president does not represent the citizens of the USA but a small group of corporate interests this is by mandate not choice, but the complexity of the situation occurs when the structure of the state is presented with a situation that is almost certainly going to have broad detrimental effects, in this case the US system seems to function, as state structures manage to divert direct orders, and muddle though to preserve US citizens continuance, and some standard of living.
RT – Russian Today Semi-decentralized:
Russia today is a semi-decentralized media in my opinion, there are a number of parameters of which that can generally be measured;
but RT is state owned, and of course will have a general Russian bias, but have an open feedback system and semi open Op-ed sections, comments are post moderated – that is to say they are significantly moderated after the comment is posted.
however I do know that moderation occurs and i believe that RT was a target of an attempt to destabilize that comment section, there have been significant improvements in access though the ability to sign on via multiple social network, however the moderation is imperfect.
compare that system to any other centralized media, you will more than likely find that nothing like that exists, it is a very significant point as this is the entry point for decentralized feedback.
So Russia today gets some things right an gets some things wrong, but has significant advantages in the future if it can source media from an Internet base and keep decentralized feedback open.
Ben Swan – the future of decentralized media:
its hard for me to be critical of Ben Swan in the sense from an analytical point of view his media outlet almost gets everything right from a decentralized point of view, Ben Swan is a “Blog media” format but quality of content is very high and his funding is it seems completely crowd sourced.
although i have not read everything of Ben Swans on this particular subject but I can predict that it would be of both high quality and accurate, his sources are primarily Internet based \, and last time i checked feedback was completely open, but further than this, there is an active feedback mechanism that is developed due to the crowd-sourcing aspect; let me explain the significant effect.
multiple views in the decentralized base, i.e the Internet are easily fed back to the Ben Swan outlet, this is a type of consensus balance , then this view might ask the Ben Swan outlet to cover a certain subject, then the Ben Swan system uses decentralized sources to fact check content and due to the crowed sourcing nature generally covers the topic that is of the most consensus, this sounds simple but its a type of revolution of media.
my prediction is that the Ben Swan system can significantly benefit from sourcing decentralized payment system such as cryptocurrency in the future, of course in the same way; a decentralized feedback mechanism may work so that he can decide which is the most viable I understand that Ben Swan accepts Bitcoin, but as stated in other documentation Bitcoin is an imperfect system if the target is wide distribution and micro transactions.
I will plainly state it here; there a significant benefit for both counter parties to accept each other.
Ben Swan media is a mini revolution / evolution in media , as Quark is an evolution of a payment protocol, Ben achieves a type of first as he has a crowd sourced base and decentralized sources and high production quality, the effect should amplify in the future.
** Ben Swan might not delve into the details of the most controversial events this is not an effect of outright manipulation its rather related to other effects, which I can discuss at a later date.
Liz Wahl & Abby Martin RT
Really two separate issues and events but inalienably linked.
Liz Wahl’s on air resignation:
seems like a decision that was based on a strong emotional effect as she sighted relatives that where living under Soviet occupation also she talked about her partner and read the resignation from a script.
she obviously had grievances and expressed them and resigned, however if she now is employed at a centralized media source unfortunately for her , her journalistic credibility will be shattered in the view of all decentralized media (the opposing and more efficient form), I’m in no position to give advice Liz but look towards a Ben Swan style media system if you wish to continue journalistic credibility, as the criticism are probably indeed warranted due to the semi-centralized nature of RT, while a move to a fully centralized system will undoubtedly pay the bills, but you might find something missing.
Abby Martin seems to strike a balance, in the start of this episode of Breaking the set:
She accurately states that she is opposed to all military interventions, a very balanced view unfortunately in this case the details, geography and geopolitical aspects probably make this “military intervention” inevitable, again if this situation was presented to any nation so close to its boarders and given the other aspects geopolitically the situation would be at least the same.
So its not for me to say if i support or not support, as it does not matter its what is written in specific protocols and specific basic mandates for nations to secure their immediate interests and citizens interests.
Abby Martin to be fair had more flexibility inside RT as she had her own semi-decentralized show, but certainly did not help her credibility on the subject when admitting to “not know very much about the situation” but take a public stance on it anyhow?
The risk Abby runs in that case is to be saying the same thing if ground troops were rolling into Mexico from a significant foreign power with aims to set up offensive hardware etc etc, its hard to say that you always oppose any move, as you more than likely will have to contradict that stance in the future, thus credibility gap, if you look at the Ben Swan system it usually states facts and leaves the feedback open.
Bill has taken a lot of criticism because of his stance, but my opinion is that he gets aspects about RT correct, RT of course points out US flaws as it comes from a Russian perspective, and rarely highlights Russian specifics, and I would remind viewers that Bill grew up with the shadow of Communism casting itself across the globe , at that time a real threat.
despite this criticism he has stuck to his opinion and I respect that, and he has I noticed also let a critical view through on his many videos a sign that he is open to opinion and feedback.
Decentralized media will effectively consume and evolve centralized media.
centralized media is a dinosaur of time gone, it has effectively two primary options:
- Evolve to a decentralized consensus
- Cease to exist.
Some will evolve , many will cease to exist in all but name, as some brands still hold significant iconic value both positive and negative, I will dive into the details of how that evolution will occur in a later document.
Summary of the Ukrainian situation:
I think the primary balanced view after exuberance subsides is that, while its and event and a cause for concern, the events unfolded as was expected for the action taken.
decentralized media is the future of media , and consensus is very wary of centralized sources so will seek facts else were, as these detail emerge and are cross checked this consensus will find a balance.
I suspect in that the events could have been handled without the exuberance on both sides but that reactions accurately represent the actions that were taken to warrant the event, this by default is a loss for centralized corporate media as they lose a few more participants and their version of reality shifts to the effective smallest fork.
I’m always open to new information, so feel free to give me direct feedback.