http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(novel)

That people dying in their millions in other poor parts of the world are not real in the real version of Brave New World. Only rich western folks dying is real.

And if and when that cultural wall falls down via eventual interconnectness, say via the $100 laptop project, people won’t feel too great about all those exceedingly stupid car adverts and the late models lining nearly every street of every suburb in every city in this country.

So much useful money gone on the car obsession that could be saving lives somewhere.

Now I’d like to see that.

How bad will the situation become? The base quality of the current media- ignoring key aspects of fundamental reality - in favour of cheap polarising politics ( the Nero’s fiddle while Rome burns) is evident.

The recent superbowl advertisement featuring Alec Baldwin suggests the strategy is going all the way - with Hulu - the ultimate campaign to complete the mind mush process across all devices.

http://news.rosettamoon.com/?p=235

I agree 100% with your point that the world of commercial news, with their endless grandstanding about how wonderful they are, were way behind — which is why I quoted you. Maybe if they spent a little less on hair, makeup and self-promotion and a little more on actually, you know, reportage…

Tom McLoughlin, you have a very good point there. One of the key “benefits” of the “new media” is that people have more choices, and they’re slowly discovering that there’s more happening in the world than portrayed on their Identikit 6pm bulletins of 6 stories, sport and weather plus the cute dog with the balancing trick at the end.

Maybe we’ll find that instead of spending $2000 on a fancy gas BBQ which they use 4 times a year to impress their friends, that same money could buy two entire houses ($750 each from Oxfam Unwrapped) for cyclone-ravaged Vanuatu — and still have money left for a BBQ to celebrate what good global citizens they were.

Maybe.

http://www.crikey.com.au/crikey-shop.html

I’d like to clarify the intention of my post as the reference you included gives me the impression you’re lumping me into the rubbernecker category.

My post was really a shot at our core media outlets and the control they exercise over many of our lives. I argued that outlets like the FTA channels showed little inclination to really extend themselves and start using the tools at their disposal – maybe that’s my fault for believing they have a news obligation. Their efforts stand in stark contras to how a number of US media outlets reacted to the crash of flight 1549 into the Hudson. Should I cut them some slack given it was a weekend? No. They are the ones who grandstand that “wherever news happens we’ll be there” or “when incident X happened, we were the ones who broke the news”. You set that expectation you live up to it.

As for twitter, I share your thoughts. I understand the gravity of the disaster but Twitter and FaceBook et al were nothing more than an extension of what happens when Sunrise/Today call for SMS input or news.com.au opens a story to public comment – it’s a magnet for the populist hordes - and the cries of “Our Steph”, or “Our Libby”

Now a few days later, I’m amazed that mainstream media and their hordes of digital media experts haven’t cottoned on as to how they can leverage tools like Twitter to in fact deliver more eyeballs. Why was the ABC the only one capable of delivering a fully integrated and synchronised TV/Radio/Web/social media event on Sunday night?

Many significant questions still remain as to the role of social media tools like Twitter and co in the future. I would argue what we saw on Sunday shows that they can play an important role but that role might only be short lived until more coordinated assets can be mobilised.

I’d like to say more but your response limit has beaten me…