Mainstream Media Vs. YouTube

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, Aug 12, 2014.

  1. Merkava_4, Aug 12, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2014

    Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    People participating in this political forum aways demand a posted credible source to back up one's opinion, claim, or agenda. But if the person posts a link to YouTube, all credibility to that person's claim is usually declared invalid. People usually demand a link from a mainstream media source. If the posted source is from an independent website or a video on YouTube, it's usually perceived as not credible and therefore invalid. The problem with that way of thinking is there's a lot of information out there that the mainstream media - which is bought and paid for by the corporate interests - don't want you to know.

    If I was to point out something that's happening in this world right now that's not being told by the mainstream media, I'd instantly be labelled a conspiracy theorist. The global elite is very clever at using the mainstream media to keep the general population pacified and entertained so that the people don't start thinking too much. They want you to work your 8 hour job and then come home and watch football. They don't want you reading books written by Jim Marrs, Daniel Estulin, and James Perloff.

    A general population that thinks too much and starts connecting the dots becomes a population that's a danger to the global elite and they don't want that. There's a lot of useful information available to you people on YouTube, but the key is entering in the correct keywords.

    The MacRumors political forum is my most favorite political forum on the internet; the reason for that is the involvement of its members who are intelligent and well educated; however, I get frustrated because I'm thinking of all the excellent topics that are not being discussed because you people insist on posted sources from the mainstream media.
     
  2. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #2
    I personally have nothing against using Youtube videos as a source, just needs to show some kind of credibility.
     
  3. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #3
    Eh. Who?:confused: Never heard of those blokes.:eek: *in a sheeple voice* Baahhh! Baaaahhhh!:p

    I don't care about the rest of the whole, just my little corner. As for youtube vs mainstream media, I view them on equal footing in terms of credibility (grain of salt). They are good for entertainment. And yes, Mr. Maximus Decimus Meridius, I AM entertained.:D:D
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    It depends on what sort of argument you are trying to make.

    If you want evidence to support your claim that kittens are adorable, or that combining Mentos and Coca-Cola creates a vigorous reaction - then, yes, YouTube is a highly credible source.

    But if you are arguing that 9/11 or the assassination of John Kennedy was part of an international conspiracy? Not so much. The people speaking in those videos may, or may not, be credible. But the fact they have sat down in front of a videocamera doesn't lend any greater credence to their theories.

    The problem with YouTube as a source is that it has virtually no barriers to entry. I can sit down and record myself playing a virtuoso performance of Sweet Child O Mine on guitar and YouTube will accept it, no questions asked. But if I forward that same videoclip to the New York Times - I am pretty much certain it won't make it onto their website. Because the New York Times is a journalistic organization, and it applies tests, such as "Is this newsworthy?" and "Is this provably factually accurate?" before it puts a story in its pages or on its website.

    For that reason some sources, such as the New York Times, are always going to be regarded as more credible than others - such as YouTube.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    Well, if the YouTube video is a primary source it is a great way to make an argument.

    However, a video of someone pontificating is often a huge waste of time. That person lacks the credibility that comes from a mainstream media organization, and yet often relies on information collected from mainstream media sources to make an argument.

    Good reporting is hard and expensive, so only a very few can afford to do all the work necessary to build a good piece without needing some way to pay for that.
    If you don't trust the "Mainstream media" look for small, independent outlets that belong to LION or independent weeklies.
    Vice has been doing great work on foreign reporting and you can also look toward new groups like Fusion, Vox, and FiveThirtyEight.

    Mostly, when I hear people critique the "mainstream media" they're talking about television news and USA Today because that's what most people are consuming.
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    I do: I can read a bunch of paragraphs in the time that it takes for a yt video to go through all the gesticulatory nonsense they need to make their point. I do not need the dramatic pauses, the pointless arty graphics and the inane inflections of a video, just put the damn words up in front of me, and make them good enough to provoke thought.

    Which is to say, video sucks.
     
  7. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #7
    Well if the discussion is about genocide, a video might a harder impact than numbers/words. At least for me...
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    Video that "shows" a story can be awesome, but YouTube almost completely deals in the genre of "tell."
     
  9. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #9
    it seems to me that the problem is really that youtube videos often don't actually rely on actual factual information collected from ANYWHERE (mainstream or not), but rather they're just opinions and often wild speculation

    The internet has brought us access to vast amounts of new "information" which unfortunately people tend to trust as true simply because it's been posted online
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Certainly and this is also true with blog posts and podcasts.

    Of course, reader beware was coined before the Internet.
     
  11. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #11
    In an academical discourse neither a TV show nor a newspaper article is an acceptable source.
    Same goes for youtube videos.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    Unless that academic discourse is about television shows and newspapers.
     
  13. Carlanga macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #13
    I think a yt video with an example of what you think is a 'good' source' for a discussion would help with this.

    As for me, I don't care if it is mainstream or yt videos, I want to have scientific proof by peer reviewed journals, anything else becomes possible hearsay including mainstream.
     
  14. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #14
    :D true. Like comic books are a legit source for academic discourse about Donald Duck.
     
  15. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #15
    For a lot of people here, personal experience trumps peer-to-peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:
     
  16. TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    Do not forget the excessive overuse of jump cuts, borderline NSFW thumbnails and obnoxious voice overs to existing content. YT is a cesspool of people flailing around in an attempt to create content that drives minute's viewed. Their arsenal will consist of shocking footage to extreme viewpoints that make sane people scratch their head. It is like a car wreck, you know it is stupid but you cannot help but watch all of it. This makes the money.

    There is a small amount of credible content on it, unfortunately it is mostly cuts or full uploads of existing credible videos.
     
  17. noodlemanc macrumors regular

    noodlemanc

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Australasia
    #17
    And that's a bad thing? If someone is talking about 9/11 being an inside job or whatever, I would focus on the evidence and arguments that they present, rather than who they are or who they work for.

    If an argument is valid than an argument is valid, regardless of who made it.
    If an argument is invalid than an argument is invalid, regardless of who made it.
     
  18. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #18
    Where the information comes from absolutely makes a difference. You bringing up 9/11 conspiracies is an excellent point to consider. For something like 9/11 conspiracies there are a lot of "what about this?" and "what about that?" that can confuse the viewer without having a firm understanding of what is actually going on. For instances, one of the big arguments for 9/11 being an inside job is that "Steel has a higher melting temperature than the temperature that jet fuel burns at" implying the jet fuel fires couldn't have brought the towers down. If you know your strength of materials (and a vast majority of people watching the YouTube video won't), you would know that the steel does not have to melt to lose its structural integrity. You can heat up steel enough that it will start to bend and fail even though the steel hasn't actually melted. This is because steel is a ductile material.

    Popular Mechanics actually did a huge run down debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories from experts that actually know the engineering behind the arguments.

    And that's why the source matters. With a magazine like Popular Mechanics, you can feel comfortable that the people writing for it actually know a thing or two about the "physics of 9/11" whereas some guy on YouTube can present some arguments that sound compelling, but don't actually hold up to scrutiny.

    Not everyone can be an expert in every field. And that's why the source matters.

    P-Worm
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    Every hour more than four thousand hours of material gets uploaded to YouTube. There is no way any human being could possibly come close to sampling even a tiny fraction of that - let alone weighing its validity as a reliable source.

    Thats what people don't understand: Curation is incredibly important. We need other people to comb through the torrent of data, and songs, and videos, and TV shows, and movies, and fashion, and pulled pork sandwiches - and decide which ones are good enough to recommend to others. And which ones aren't worth your time.

    And I'm very sorry: if someone posts a link to some guy on YouTube who has this theory about cold fusion, or 9/11, or Hitler's brain - I won't waste my time.

    Because I'm pretty confident that if any of those theories had a glimmer of truth to them, then the people at Sandia Natl. Labs; or the FBI; or the New York Times will be looking into them.

    YouTube has its place. If I want to chortle over cute doggies, or learn how to play Stairway to Heaven on guitar - its great. But not for settling political, scientific, or historical discussions.
     
  20. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #20
    Most of the YouTube links that I see are links to a news story that was originally aired on television. None of us get every television station in the world, but social media allows us to share more. Other links are speeches given by politicians. While we can't attend every single speech the President makes, through social media we have that opportunity.

    I don't discount a source because it is on YouTube, I look to see where the source of the YouTube video was.
     
  21. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #21
    I remember the video of the police beating Rodney King.

    Up until then there had been stories in the newspapers and on the TV about police brutality, but they always were without real pictures, and therefore they had less impact. But that video changed all that the world saw.

    You Tube has changed all that, for good or bad, the world now judges not some editor.
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    I sometimes wonder what CNN MSNBC and Fox News consider newsworthy, they seem to air a lot of crap they consider news.
     

Share This Page