Here be dragons

The new media landscape is unexplored territory.

As the looming conflict in Israel threatens to become a regional war and possibly a global war, we will be bombarded with propaganda that reflects the regime’s own aspirations. One side good, other side bad.

But even after only a few weeks since hostilities began we are already seeing the impact of new forms of media distinct from the mainstream. Tik Tok and other platforms delivered millions of videos showing many aspects of the conflict, from short amateur video clips to longer thought pieces by concerned citizens.

The footage documented brutality and carnage. Hamas had seemingly targeted unarmed civilians, including women and children as well as young people enjoying a concert. Disturbingly the material was recorded and uploaded by Hamas themselves who did not hide their stated aim to target non-combatants.

Amid claims and counterclaims the entire episode was allowed to happen by the Israelis, including accusations of false flag events, it is apparent the war for information control is no longer in the hands of mainstream news outlets.

The traditional media followed more predictable lines. Reporters in flak jackets on the scene shared excerpts from the videos with commentary. Officials were interviewed. Nothing was really discussed, especially the growing narratives emerging from each side in the conflict. Governments quickly established which side they supported and produced the usual suspects to articulate their positions.

Compared to the torrent of unedited and shaky footage from both Israelis and Palestinians, it was business as usual. A partly sanitized war with governments quick to publish press releases the TV stations communicated verbatim.

In contrast the amateur footage reflected an unfiltered immediacy the mainstream no longer possesses. And the ongoing conflict in the Holy Land is bringing this to our attention.

Echo chambers and discovery tools

In the aftermath of the Hamas incursion into Israel a number of events took place all over the Western world. Most major cities saw citizens come together in a seemingly spontaneous show of support for Palestine.

Footage was immediately uploaded to multiple platforms, much of it video captured on phones. This flood of material showed events in the raw in contrast to the edited and managed narratives of the mainstream. It became easy to essentially follow a story and its many nuances with minimal effort.

While alternative media platforms are nothing new, this coverage feels like a novel phenomenon and at odds with how we used to consume media. Almost anything popular is instantly accessible without middlemen managing a narrative.

On many platforms the material displayed is tailored based on past viewing choices. This happens automatically making it easy to explore topics from content providers unfamiliar to us.

There is a danger common to all social media in that this can trap us in an echo chamber. All we see is biased content based on past choices, tricking us into thinking of issues in a distorted way where no criticism is visible.

But it also acts as a kind of discovery tool, where watching a video on one topic throws up material from content providers new to you, some of which can provide an alternative point of view. If you watch enough it can act as a kind of attractor, providing a more rounded 360 degree view of the subject matter.

For those genuinely interested in exploring multiple perspectives on something of interest it is easy to search for additional content to round out existing knowledge.

None of this is perfect, but it stands in opposition to mainstream media in that there is a higher degree of control for the end user. The long tradition of programmed material that characterizes the mainstream now has competition.

This view is tempered by the knowledge many technology firms control material, often prompted by governments and their agents. Platforms like Tik Tok are known to censor some content quite aggressively. However during the Israel-Palestine demonstrations in capital cities video was being added more quickly than they could remove it. Some of it was live although most was recorded, typically short videos. Almost none of it was edited. Much of this was raw footage on the ground from participants at these events.

The algorithms are designed to give you more material along the same lines and work well to propagate content. If the recent pro-Palestine demonstrations are typical this phenomena may be impossible to control for fast-moving events. They can probably control a big narrative like Covid, but not a live one with millions of uploads.

Then there is the sharing, remixing and responding phenomenon unique to newer platforms. Users can respond easily to other videos posted, often embedding the original video for reference.

The mainstream reject this as it is alien to their business model. Yet it feels organic when consumed, plus we ourselves can respond to this material and tag it for the original poster to prompt a further response.

Nothing like this exists within traditional media. Most of these videos have comments so the traditional approach, watching programmed material on a television, feels much more restrictive.

Even on platforms with aggressive censoring this embedded video response phenomenon can often preserve original material removed for violating some rule. The new video can then propagate independently making it challenging to prevent a wide audience consuming content, the express purpose of censorship.

It is difficult to escape the notion this changes how we consume media even if these platforms are still in their infancy. To make matters worse, traditional media has problems of its own.

The mainstream is showing its age

The mainstream is largely a one-way broadcast of information. Television, print media and even digital media exist to publish and broadcast to people with minimal interaction. Some online media provides comments, but these are heavily moderated and often absent for sensitive subjects.

This model is a reflection of an older approach largely based on print publishing. Professionals publish their reportage and opinion pieces then audiences get to consume it. That’s it.

The newer platforms add more layers of interaction. Social media and video platforms allow amateur content. They often have professional content too, but most of the material is user generated. Plus comments are ubiquitous making interaction a key part of the experience.

In contrast the mainstream media channels seem stuck in a much older world. In the UK the BBC were chastised for refusing to label Hamas as a terrorist organization, opting instead to describe them as militants. The ensuing debate among media pundits lasted over a week.

This was standard fare, with rival networks taking potshots at the BBC. But for the first time it looked out of touch. A collection of media dinosaurs slugging it out over the use of terminology no one cared much for while people were being killed. A storm in a teacup.

Meanwhile the newer platforms churned out more and more live video footage of life in Gaza, Israel and the reactions around the world. These were videos with no commentary and no expert pundits telling us what was going on. The content propagated based on its impact, absent fancy graphics or flak-jacketed actors in helmets to tell us what to think.

The mainstream media has been in steep decline since Covid where their bias became impossible to hide. Since then many revelations have emerged about collusion with Western governments which has done little to improve their credibility.

In addition most are in financial decline thanks to falling audience numbers. In the United States leading news shows can have fewer than a million viewers. A moderately successful video on Tik Tok can manage twice that. Some popular YouTube channels regularly exceed even these numbers. And lone gunmen with clout like Tucker Carlson can boast several hundred million views now he has moved away from an established news network and essentially broadcasts on his own.

The mainstream’s woes have not been aided by their recent coverage of the Ukraine war which explicitly followed the US government’s official lead. Even while informed pundits online were describing the hopeless task facing the Ukrainians, and their relentless defeat at the hands of the Russians, most news channels instead spread the official narrative that a Ukrainian victory was forever imminent.

This was more than narrative management. It was outright lies that bore no relation to reality. Like many other recent initiatives this has cost them.

We are also witnessing a generational shift. It is fashionable to write off younger people as low attention types, lost in a quest for dopamine hits. But the platforms they use are popular and the content delivery is adapting. The mainstream is not adapting and is being left behind.

What the traditional media imagine as fortification by Deep State forces through the management of narratives is more akin to ossification of an approach that is already failing to cultivate significant numbers of new consumers. The kids aren’t watching television and virtually no one is buying newspapers. What then is the point of elaborate and expensive narrative control when nobody is consuming it?

A new media landscape

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion the mainstream has destroyed itself in recent years. A loss of trust and obvious narrative management are just some of its problems. Fewer people than ever consume anything mainstream.

The new platforms, foremost among them Tik Tok, are something different. They offer a more immersive experience and their matching algorithms tailor content which is seemingly endless.

Most of the content providers are amateurs. You can watch a series of videos that include slick professional videos followed by someone filming a related incident through a window onto the street. The mainstream do nothing like this. Their polish, including theme music and adverts as well as handsome presenters, looks strikingly artificial in comparison. Its manufactured nature, until recently a strength, now seems more of a liability.

Given the likelihood of war in the middle east and the potential for it to escalate, the infrastructure is in place to change how we view the world. All this is nothing new yet the Israel-Gaza situation feels different. Even Hamas used the power of these platforms to boast of their escapades. The Israelis are no doubt doing the same.

What to mainstream producers seems like an endless stream of amateur footage in need of editing is to others an authentic portal into the real world. Each individual video means little, but the ease with which complementary material can be found creates a kind of aggregate effect we have not really seen before. Even casual users can find themselves quickly exposed to dozens of angles of the same event and building a picture of things for themselves.

Recent developments seem to support this. Israel is losing the media war. Given its wealth, and the relative poverty of its Palestinian foes, this feels like a departure from the norm. Billion-dollar propaganda campaigns may not have the reach they once did. The footage emerging from Gaza shows war as it really is, and seemingly everyone has a phone and internet access. When carnage is difficult to hide it is difficult to spin.

We know most governments are pursuing a host of control initiatives that include narrative management, censorship and blatant propaganda as well as attempts to force digital IDs to remove anonymity. Yet there is a sense this is too little too late. The very lack of structure of platforms like Tik Tok make it more resilient against censorship and control.

Much of the appeal of this is its potential for free speech. In the past we imagined free speech meant a news outlet covering all sides of a story, a balanced view. Many news networks like CNN or the BBC are often criticized for this lack of balance.

However what may be emerging is a new approach where we are given access to multiple views and often just raw footage. This arguably has more potential for the interested to construct their own take on important matters. Wars, economics, the affairs of the day, all of it available in an easy to consume way no one person or group controls completely.

The mainstream is famously constrained. It deals with legal issues, political leanings and corporate interests, including being swayed by advertisers. It often feels compromised.

The very amateurishness of newer video platforms appears less biased, despite many uploaders having some obvious bias of their own. We can watch a few dozen 60-second videos of the recent Israel-Gaza demonstrations, most one-sided or skewed, some absolutely hateful and distorted, and still construct a more accurate picture of events on the ground than any polished media narrative.

What it lacks in sophistication or coherency it makes up for in spread. You get it all, largely unedited or manipulated, and your mind is forced to create a framework to make sense of it.

This is closer to reality than anything we have consumed in a long time. It feels more in tune with how our brains actually process information. We seek out information, often in a constrained manner to bolster some previous position, only to find reality does not conform to our prejudiced view. The real world exists outside of our distorted perception. The cure for this tendency is exposure to different viewpoints, and the mainstream lacks the bandwidth to provide this. It always reflects some palatable line in keeping with the political leanings of the producers.

It is the deepest of ironies a video platform like Tik Tok, produced by the authoritarian Chinese, may offer a glimpse of life as it is without propaganda. And yet it does after a fashion.

The new video platforms won’t be the last word in this. It is likely a transitional mechanism. A glimpse into a technique to deliver short blasts of the real world minus the middlemen of the traditional media. The unvarnished truth of real life delivered via bad camera work and poor audio, but also lacking the invisible hand of narrative management teams or behavioural psychologists.

In a world of controlled media this feels fresh and more real.

This technology is in its infancy, and so far seems to be primarily short video content. And yet this is what the kids are consuming. Is this the future for many? Millions of personal videos of events emerging from multiple sources as they happen? All of it unfolding too quickly to control or massage?

It is no substitute for serious research, and little can match a well written piece exploring a complex issue. But it has the virtue of developing too fast to effectively censor. And today, with strenuous efforts being made to manufacture narratives, hide dissent and target hate speech it may offer a glimpse of something unstoppable.

It could evolve into the closest thing we have to real life, the only known antidote to the poison of authoritarian propaganda and spin. If so we may be living through an experimental era that will help the ordinary masses finally confront and defeat those billion-dollar propaganda campaigns that are killing our societies. Perhaps there is more to addictive easy-to-use video apps than meets the eye.

---