Is there still a role for Devil's Advocacy in the age of social media trolls? Adopting a contrary position for the sake of debate has its origins in the Catholic Church and has become institutionalized in it's use in refining academic writing as an "opposing view" or antithesis. But as social media trolling begins to have real-world consequences, from violence to criminal investigations, should we retire the Devil's Advocate role once and for all? Or is there an affirmative role for a new kind of digital demon?
I kind of see what point you have, but I think you need to be a bit more specific. Do you have a specific instance that shows how devil's advocacy has "real-world consequences" that could support this argument well?
– Suman8 years ago
I think an additional consideration for whoever writes this could also be how to handle trolls/Devil's Advocates in an academically sound and ethical matter in order to avoid whatever "real world consequences" you are referring to – Kevin8 years ago
I like the essence of this topic, but it seems too willing to dismiss the value of playing devil's advocate in an abstractly general sense simply because a very specific type of devil's advocate is exhausting its value. In other words, the topic seems too willing to dismiss the concept of contrarianism because there are people who misuse it. Suppose, hypothetically, that we got rid of all devil's advocates, what would happen then? Would people be prohibited from making opposing claims and arguments? – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
I think whoever writes this should be specific about *Where* they see these devil's advocates. As, echoing what Kevin said, the internet troll started out as a form of devil's advocacy but has since become something else. (There is a good PBS idea channel video about this topic). If we're talking about real life discussion though, there's potential for a useful form of this rousing. – Mariel8 years ago
User-generated photographs or videos regularly dominate television bulletins and the front pages of newspapers, while opinionated blogging also gains significant traction in redefining the field of journalism. Analyze the impact of participatory action on social media in steering journalism, and the implications of this shift in control towards the individual consumer.
Very important topic. I think it's sad that our society is viewing a death in traditional journalism with the rise of sites such as Buzz Feed (where copying and pasting gifs off of blogs is more important than critical journalist skills) or even just popular magazines like peoples, etc. I think another interesting social media platform to explore with a topic like this is tumblr. A lot of people (especially young people) use the site as a way to vent their frustrations and write about heavily loaded topics without any sources, etc. It usually causes more harm then good with passion and opinions rising -- especially when these opinions are often skewed or lack research to back up claims. In a way, people use the sight to mimic aspects of journalism but do so incorrectly. – Mela9 years ago
The Illuminati runs the media. – Riccio9 years ago
Whenever you're dealing with the traditional journalism vs. citizen journalism debate, it's important to note that many citizen/alternative journalists still rely on traditional outlets to break stories (to the tune of more than 90%). The usual process is that traditional news brings the facts and citizen/alternative journalism brings near endless analysis. – Ian Miculan9 years ago
A documentarian in Newfoundland, Chris Brookes, had a fun quote about citizen journalists that might be worthwhile for quotation. "I don't particularly care for citizen journalism, I don't think it's good idea. I also don't want citizen doctors or dentists. We train for a reason." – Piper CJ9 years ago
Social media has an impact on the world, there is no doubt about it. However, social media often lacks: proper sourcing, critical analysis, depth of writing, and much more. Hard hitting journalism will for the foreseeable future be done by large outfits such as The New York Times and Washington Post. Pieces like the recent NYT's one on Amazons work place culture were incredibly insightful. Social media can be an asset, where people can gather and discuss ideas, but the anonymity it presents issues here as well. Twitter arguments are not known for their civility or nuance for a reason. They do provide however extremely important outlets for those who are in areas where traditional streams of information do not flow. Without social media the situation in Syria would be a lot darker than it it currently is. – Aridas9 years ago
It's a mixed bag with the Internet. I just read an article, "Lucy Bites the Dust," about the scientific debunking of Lucy as a human ancestor. As excellent as the article was, the comments section by scientists was even more interesting. Years ago I read an article on a website that sounded convincing, read a couple of others on the site and realized it was highly literate racist propaganda. Like most people, I assume, I believe in free speech, but also in the golden rule. That use of journalism is a disappointment. Also, keeping in mind the infamous Goebbels quote - "He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses" - how much of a thorn is the Internet to the powers who might benefit from keeping us in the dark, if in fact such entities exist? Are there examples of curtailing free speech on the Internet, etc.? – Tigey8 years ago
I'd like to see a topic on how and why celebrities and professional producers who have many more funding avenues available to them than amateurs still resort to using crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter to fund high profile projects
I would imagine some famous people would prefer Crowdfunding because 1. it's easy to get money when you're already well known and 2. their creative vision won't be censored or shaped by whatever big film company would have funded them. This article should also look into the Veronica Mars case study though. The time skip movie after the show ended was offered up by the actors on kickstarter for fans to fund to help them make; however, the project got so popular the movie idea was bought out by a film company to produce when it had previously been rejected. How did the backers feel? Did they get ripped of in any way? – Slaidey9 years ago
