Two episodes of online journalism have reminded me how small I understand. And there's no forecast that this will change in the planet of communication irrationality.
First, rolls
A fewer days ago I came across the program of Grzegorz Sroczyński “Breakfast of symmetry”. Dr. Daria Chibner (“Rzeczpospolita”, “Plus Minus”), Dr. Zbigniew Nowak (a lawyer, academic lecturer), Anna Wittenberg (portal zero.pl), and Robert Winnicki (a talker at the Parliament of the Republic of Poland VIII and IX word of office) were invited to episode 6 in Channel Zero. And it was the erstwhile parliamentarian who said something very interesting. He stated that the presence on the parliament platform is primarily utilized present to mount rolls and print them on social media. No vulnerability to your position, no debate or political dispute, no. Clean show under range: good staff, good lighting, large sound strategy – nothing but use.
What psychic, specified a message
I immediately remembered the investigation of CBOS in June 2025 entitled “Young and Social Media”. It turns out that people aged 18-24 until 39% get information about events in the country and in the planet from MS. With age this percent decreases, but the natural rank of generations from year to year increases social media participation as the first origin of information. It promotes radical, polarizing, emotional, quick, easy understandable content. A flash signal, a media proof of propriety for their own, plowing the others. It's hard to catch any of this, but it's not about understanding, it's about persuasion and entertainment.
Many years ago, even in college, I met Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian media theorist. It assumes that the average is simply a message – the form of communication affects the audience more than the content itself. It stimulates specified alternatively than another perceptional readiness and as a consequence interpretations. I remember that I had difficulty with this concept of reality at the time. present I realize it better: rolls, standard 280 characters of entry on X, shortcuts with AI, so tube determines reception.
Slow signal
We feel instinctively that the antidote to specified media toxins could be exhausting, substantive debates. Hmmm... A fewer days after the “Symmetrist breakfast” I saw a discussion at Bogdan Rymanowski in the program “Contra” by Prof. Ziemowit Malechy (Mechanics and Energy Department of Wrocław University of Technology) and Jakub Wiech (a journalist, erstwhile editor of the Energetyka24.com portal). It was a very different gathering than with Grzegorz Sroczyński, 2 hours of discussion about energy transformation. Peaceful, long speeches, without interruption, citing many articles, reports, data, etc. Slow signal, but besides perfect proof of propriety for theirs, with an effort to plow the others. It was hard to put it all in your head, not to mention understanding.
Daily Irration
It is frequently not possible to draw adequate out of reels and long speeches to identify the truth. And, contrary to appearances, this is not due to any highly different reasons. Jürgen Habermas, 1 of the most prominent sociologists of the 20th century (died in March of that year), among his many intellectual achievements he created a explanation of communication rationality.
According to Habermas, the perfect communication situation defines respective factors, including equality of opportunity, symmetry of roles, deficiency of coercion, sincerity and truthfulness. The last variable seems crucial to me. Honesty and veracity implies, among others, the readiness to admit a mistake, deficiency of knowledge, public designation of the another party's right.
Does anyone imagine anything like that today? Is there any specified thing as giving the field in the name of fact in the framework of (un)reasonability of the clashing ideas represented by the tribes?
I am acquainted with comments on the Malech-Wiech debate, which in the vast majority have ideological coloration (as if the main debate did not have it...). They are besides provided by the protagonists themselves, recording interviews for the interview, presenting data, reports, translating cited publications, ripping out comfortable fragments for the rolls from the context (maybe Robert Winnicki is right?). I realize that even less, but I am invariably assuming that everyone can't be right. Or more precisely: there is no 1 or is on 1 side, and it besides tilts from 1 side to the another depending on the thread. An arbiter would be useful, but who could play the role, who could truly be trusted?
Frederick Nietzsche claimed that morality has an aesthetic background. Killing a cockroach makes us a hero, and a butterfly makes us a beast. Similarly, trust besides has quite a few irrational components, specified as ideological fixation, halo effect, erystic efficiency, or familiality vs. social distance. Sometimes we trust the ones we want, not the ones we should.
Give it up for not knowing.
On the another hand, 1 cannot live in a constant competition of reality, 1 cannot verify everything. It would be besides exhausting and make life spooky. We request simplifications for all day, and that's okay. Worse, erstwhile a individual erstwhile in a while wants to realize something and unfortunately needs to spread his hands helplessly. The translation of reality, whose superior logic is communicational irrationality, is simply a way through torment. The fact lies somewhere (only sometimes in the middle), but it may simply be impossible to scope it. In specified a situation, the most rational thing is to say “I don’t know”. But could anyone possibly applaud that honesty?
