I have been thinking about "narratives" lately.
Unless it is a descriptive piece of an event, how many facts are in any given news article?
There will be a core of facts, some context that puts some flesh on that skeleton, and a narrative pieces it all together. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It may even be necessary. But what happens when that narrative is considered fact?
That seems to happen in modern news. Any other narrative gets the dreaded "fake news" label.
I guess if I understand correctly, you are saying this disintermediation can help because a journalist is now free to create the narrative he or she sees fit because the funding comes from the users.
Now, that I explain it to myself. It makes more sense.
I think we agree. Journalists will be more free to follow the story wherever it leads. More freedom means that journalists can more easily challenge the stories and facts being presented by other journalists. More competition. All a good thing.
Okay. Understood.
I think my comment was actually trying to flesh out for myself the possibilities of marrying journalism with such a tech structure.
I have been paying more attention to an array of news sources over the last months. This word "narrative"... It is coming up so much that it is starting to lose meaning for me. It is like I can just say, "Oh! THAT narrative..." and easily dismiss vast amounts of material.
I think one thing seems sure. There seems to be all kinds of pressures to rethink many things. Right now, I suspect that a sort of tension between centralized governance and "regional" needs rather in the domain of technology or actual geography like within a nation.
Anyway... I am going on. Thanks!