Chasing the media dragon: The raison d'être

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

'There is only one thing worse in the world than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.'

Media man? Mediocre man?

That's one of Oscar Wilde's many maxims. Most of us do, of course, prefer to be known than not known. To be a somebody rather than a nobody.

This has its ebbs and flows, though. Sometimes we wish the whole world knew what we were up to while on other occasions we'd prefer to be anonymous.

Nonetheless, the desire to be a somebody usually dominates, particularly for those of us still on the make. This is even more so for those whose way of earning a living is all about engaging with the masses — the more, the merrier. Or, better put, with greater reach comes the possibility of greater recognition and, perhaps, greater riches.

In today's technology-rich, highly interconnected world obtaining a greater reach, getting oneself known, has never been easier to attempt. Anyone with even just basic computer/internet knowledge can give it a go in a matter of minutes. Artificial intelligence is making this even easier. The challenge is in finding a winning way of going from zero to hero; hero in terms of desired reach, that is.

Yet, the technology and global interconnectedness helps are also hindrances. Because mostly anyone can get themselves out there, the result is a crowded and noisy virtual space. So getting seen and heard is difficult.

Added to this is the fact that we are creatures of habit. It generally takes considerable effort to get people to buy into a new alternative if the benefits of doing so aren't immediately obvious.

Established power

In the media sphere, the one that I find most alluring, some content creators can go viral, propelling a nobody to a somebody in no time at all. Some of those have staying power. Others become forgotten about as quickly as they became known about. One-hit wonders, as it goes.

When it comes to current affairs media, traditional outlets have, on the whole, held their own in this we-can-all-be-journalists age. Money, of course, still talks. Having deep-ish pockets allows the bigger players to stay in the game for much longer and ensure their content takes precedence over that of others.

Also at play is the fact that many believe what they hear and read when it comes from a recognised, official/traditional source. An independent blogger or podcaster can't be trusted as much as the establishment or a long-standing media group with many employees.

My view is that it's better to be sceptical of all until unequivocally proven otherwise. Thus, one should always be sceptical!

I say all this as, in case you weren't aware, a current blogger and lapsed podcaster. I have skin in the game.

And while I can't speak for all independent bloggers/podcasters, I believe most who go down such a path hope to get some financial reward from it, whether directly or indirectly.

In terms of directly, I still have misplaced hopes that Google AdSense will come good for me after all these years of using the service. (I'm still, um, reeling, from that absurd six-year suspension. If I hadn't lost that time I may have reached AdSense's 70-euro payment threshold by now.)

'What is the point of blogging if views are paltry and there appears to be no real benefit to it anymore?'

Revenue from automatically created ads aside, I became an independent content creator seeing it as a means to an end, that it would be an indirect route to some financial reward. This and the idea that it would keep my name out there after leaving full-time paid work in already-established media.

To a certain extent, it has served this purpose. Whether or not it is still a net benefit to me in this regard is open to debate.

Pointless

As alluded to earlier, independent content creation, particularly that which focuses on current affairs/opinion, is struggling to stay relevant in the war on fake news/misinformation.

If one's source is a blog, even if the information is true, the instant reaction by many is to rubbish it. If it hasn't been given the seal of approval by the BBC Verify team or the equivalent, then it can't be trusted. Remember, you can always trust organisations such as the BBC, even when they present opinions as undisputed facts. (If you've made it this far with this not-to-be-trusted content, I'll refer you to my 2023 piece, Living with unsettled and unsettling questions.)

So bloggers who by now aren't already well established can forget about ever making it. Unless, that is, they tap into a niche market that has money-making potential. The same goes for podcasters. If we reached peak blogging about ten years ago, we're surely at peak podcasting now. If you're an independent podcaster who hasn't yet returned a profit, you're as well to forget about those dreams of avarice.

OK, money motivates but it's not always the main driver. If it were, I would have stopped writing this blog years ago.

One, however, still gets a brief high off the hits, infrequent as they are. The randomness of these hits still baffles me, too. 'Why did this blog story get more views than that one?' Whatever the reason, while overall views of my Google blog have actually shown an increase, views on individual stories have decreased considerably over the last couple of years or so.

So it does beg the question, 'What's the point?' Wouldn't I be better off focusing my efforts on some decently paid job rather than wasting time writing blogs? The simple answer is yes.

OK, a paid job and continuing to blog aren't mutually exclusive. I can do and have done both.

But, again, what is the point of blogging if views are paltry and there appears to be no real benefit to it anymore?

Slaying the dragon

Well, there is a cathartic element to writing. And even if my reach is minuscule, somebody might relate to and/or get something out of the odd entry I publish.

There's also the feeling of still being a somebody, a free-thinking somebody at that. Blogging, plus the occasional letter to the editor, gives me the platform to express myself, even if next to nobody is taking notice.

Now, if I were to take my thespian talents to the next level, becoming something of a star — but one with a modest carbon footprint, of course — blogging would become surplus to requirements. I would have found an alternative ego-boosting dragon, if only fleetingly — the boost from it doesn't last long.

And then we're back to 'What's the point?' Why concern myself with trying to be a media man, be that media of the new, social or traditional kind, or allow myself to be lured by the siren call of a super extra?

The answer? Well, when the media dragon has appeared to be almost completely out of reach, it's at such times I've felt the least enthused about my circumstances.

Perhaps what's needed is one final fling that will allow me to slay this dragon once and for all.

Then, a life of relative solitude, away from the media madness, content as a nobody.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

It's war alright, but not as we know it

*Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.
In my previous blog entry, I wrote about the possibility of the current cold war between China and the US heating up and how it could bring biological warfare to a new, devastating level.

In light of the deep ideological differences between the two superpowers coupled with the almost daily jibes being exchanged, it's not that difficult to imagine a casus belli. 

A more optimistic take is that, as was the case for Cold War I, while they might reach the precipice, neither side will take the plunge to destruction. Not directly anyway.

The front line of today's war; nobody is safe. (Photo by Andri from pexels.com.)

Waging cyberwar

The USSR-US stand-off was characterised by many proxy wars — Latin America saw its fair share of bloodshed in this regard — so at the very least we can expect something similar in Cold War II. Again, though, the shape of them will most likely be quite different from the battles fought in the 20th century.

In fact, online electoral interference by Russian actors, state-sponsored as it is seen to be, gives us an idea of the clandestine proxy conflicts to come.

Rather than directly or indirectly fight each other, the belligerents will attempt to deepen divides in enemy territory to fuel ongoing internal strife and instability. War on the cheap for the instigator. It's also relatively low-risk with potentially high rewards.

In the US particularly, from the outside looking in, it appears not merely a case of the seeds for division having been planted, they've sprouted and are already in bloom in many respects, thanks in no small part to the media. 

For pretty much every issue, consensus is out, contestation is in. An insignificant spark is all that's needed to set off the warring factions.

The media, both traditional and new-age, amplify any divisions by a considerable amount, while in some instances they create them where none really exist. 

On the ground, the differences are often much less pronounced than they are made out to be. This gives some cause for hope. (Take a week's break from Facebook, Twitter and the media in general and there's a big chance you'll become more relaxed.)

Be that as it may, two-form media manipulation is as strong as it's ever been. There's manipulation of the media itself by outside forces as well as the media's own malignant influence on the people it speaks to.

On the first of those, in terms of superpower conflict, we're already in a hot war and have been for some time. 

From a Western perspective, this is relayed to us, as mentioned above, in terms of Russian interference. 

No doubt it's a two-way street, perhaps done more overtly than covertly by the West, as in public denunciations of the dirty tactics from conniving Eastern powers, while at the same time, we must assume, playing them at their own game.

'At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.'

However, considering the more muzzled media in the likes of China and Russia compared to the West, interference by the latter on the former in this sphere is unlikely to be too effective.

Now, the fact that we hear dissenting voices and have verbal battles over the best course of action for a given situation is in itself not a bad thing. It's what liberal democracies with a free (in name anyway) press are all about. In normal times, this works fairly well.

Problems arise when our leaders look to unite the citizens behind a cause, especially an emotive one that is, literally, a question of life or death. This is what we're seeing right now with the coronavirus. The divide it has created brings to mind the old aphorism, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Comedown from a liberal high

In one sense, it's an inevitable product of an open, literate society replete with multiple sources of information available to the masses. If we lived under an authoritarian regime there would really only be one narrative. Thankfully, we're not subject to that — yet.

Moreover, deciphering what is #FakeNews from genuine information isn't easy in this particular conflict. 

There isn't even agreement amongst those best qualified to speak on the matter, so little wonder many lay folk, Google at hand, have serious doubts about debatable decisions being taken for 'our own health and well-being'.

As I wrote about previously, the approach to dealing with coronavirus isn't a simple black-and-white issue. It's not, as some like to make it out to be, a dollars-versus-lives decision. 

It's fair to say most agree that measures taken to stop coronavirus at all costs, to prevent premature deaths due to the virus in the here and now will have knock-on, adverse effects for some time to come.

Thus, while we can unite behind this common microscopic enemy to the extent that pretty much everybody wants it to go away — or, in the likelihood that it doesn't disappear any time soon, that it becomes less a burden on us than it currently is — we're far from united on how best to achieve this. (With such differences of opinion it's easy to understand why controlling the flow of information becomes such an attractive option for those in power.)

We can only assume that this makes for pleasant viewing for the monolithic systems in Beijing and, to a lesser extent, Moscow. At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.

So have we given our worker ants access to too much information to the point that they're now harming the system itself?

Answering in the affirmative, it can be said we've already reached peak liberalism and operating at such heights has made us become lightheaded. 

It's far from clear as to the best route down to a safer level, if one exists that is.
_______________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Rednecks rise again

Back in my early secondary school days, as a country lad heading off to mix it with the townies, it was common for the latter to mock us. We were farmer boys, or rednecks, as they say in some parts. 

It was generally a bit of innocent slagging but no doubt it had its origins in the long-held belief that workers of the land were a bit "behind", simple if you will, compared to those from urban settings.

Cattle on Bogotá's northern limits: Bringing a bit of the country to the city.

Of course, the townies of Ballaghaderreen, along with everybody else from "down the country", were derogatorily seen as bog folk, "culchies" being the precise word, by those from the capital Dublin.

Zoom out even more and the whole of Ireland was traditionally viewed as being backward by our "superior" neighbours in Britain. 'Strange specimens those Irish, aren't they?'

City fat cats

Modern, advanced, rich societies emanate from urban strongholds with their schools of excellence and suchlike. Rural areas only get the crumbs, enough to keep them ticking over, from the power brokers seated around that grandiose table. So it goes anyway.

Nonetheless, keeping those seated at the urban table well-fed and content with affordable food is nigh-on impossible without the simple country folk doing their bit to provide it.

'We’re just a few consecutive disasters away from very troubling times.'

The irony here is that while the great advancements in communications and technology have made the world a smaller place, many urban dwellers have become quite removed, mentally at least, from the rural areas that they rely on to stay alive.

OK, they have other, more complicated, complex concerns to worry about. The country serves simply as escapism from the concrete jungle. Engagement with it is at a superficial level only.

What's more, aren't the technological improvements in agriculture and the like, urban brainchildren as most have been, resulting in greater yields and reduced workloads for those who farm the land?

There's merit to that.

Yet, to continue providing for the growing urban masses, more engagement with, and investment in, the countryside are required, not less.

Misplaced priorities

Whether one believes in man-made climate change or not (Donald Trump, considering his age, doesn't have to concern himself with it), we can't deny the fact that we have been experiencing extreme weather events that threaten our precious food supply. We could be just a few consecutive disasters away from quite troubling times.

How many of us would be able to survive in a kind of post-apocalyptic planet, something akin to what we often see portrayed in Hollywood movies?

It would seem fair to say that a majority of First Worlders have become too reliant on our modern comforts, on a lifestyle where we can get pretty much anything we want when we want it.

'We won't be too concerned about our mental health when our very existence is under threat.'

As a species, we could also be accused of vastly overvaluing non-essentials at the expense of the essentials. Think Hollywood again, that whole world of showbiz and fame.

Heck, I left the land I was reared on (as the majority of rural-born people do these days) to go on to pursue a career (can I call it that?!) in media. Fair enough, journalism plays — or at least used to play — an important role as the fourth estate, it can be a force of positive change.

However, the counter-argument here is that this vocation has lost its way and relevance in recent times (whisper it, #FakeNews. Thanks Donald). And don't get me started again on the evil incarnate that is marketing!

On a similar note, a Colombian psychologist friend told me how he wanted to get "back to the land", fearing that without preventative action now he would be useless when faced with a future scenario where one had to fend for oneself for the bare necessities.

As he put it, when it's a simple matter of life or death, very few people will be looking to take the time to think deeply about it all, teasing out the pros and cons. His profession would be practically surplus to requirements.

Basically, and as much as I'm not a fan of Christianity (or any religion really), the old mantra of 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust and dust you shall return' rings true.

The land, the planet will have the last laugh.

Those old backward rednecks who understand it a little better than most mightn't seem so repulsive then.
________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan – The Blog & IQuiz “The Bogotá Pub Quiz”.
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.