1948 – 1984 – 2014


So many things are going through my mind right now, after seeing
this little forecast film. So many thoughts | have are represent
in this prognosis. I don’t want to say anything about what you’re
going to see if you click here, but I hope you will. So leave a comment.
The only thing I want say is this EPIC:


‘1984’ George Orwell

PS: thank you FRANK* for the tip through bieslog.


  1. Posted November 30, 2004 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    frightening in its realism

  2. Posted November 30, 2004 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    It is pretty realistic, but i must say i miss one important thing: the link to the real world. I’m sure this scenario could become a reality within a couple of years. But, as i recall, the EPIC video says that newspapers are merely for elderly and the elite, come 2014p; if Googlezon does not export its product to television and/or printed media, turning static into dynamic media, that’s not gonna happen.

    Internet news-sites are still only a mirror of ‘real-life’ media, for a handful of people, compared to other media. A nice example: when i read about 9-11 on cnn.com, i turned to the nearest TV, to see if it was real and to get live coverage.

  3. Rufus.K
    Posted November 30, 2004 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    That’s an interesting point; but what if (and concidering the growth of the ‘rich-poor’ gap nowadays, this thought might not be as ridiculous as some of my earlier statements) people simply cannot afford ‘regular’ printed papers anymore.

    Who says the same will not happen for television? where you may have to subscribe to special news stations in order to actually ‘see’ what’s going on, simply because ‘normal’ broadcasting might not air news or newslike programmes anymore. In that case, people just might think internet will do for their need for news facts. (also because the reliability by then has ‘grown’ to a level tv has nowadays).

    It just might be so…

  4. Posted November 30, 2004 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    That’s what i said; it could happen, but the relation between static and dynamic media will have to change. By dynamic media i mean personalized media, like you can already get on the internet. You can’t get that in your newspaper/magazine or on your TV. Yet. And if you could, it remains to be seen if people actually want it.

    After that, the question is: if everyone has created their own reality by being fed dynamic (filtered) media, will people not compare their personal feed to those of people in their social network and start questioning their feed?

  5. rufus.k
    Posted November 30, 2004 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    I guess there’s danger involved in every of the changes we’re going to go through… It’s pretty interesting matter, though. Also there’s always some sort of x-factor, like an unexpected (r)evolution in the mediatic landscape, which can happen and make this debate totally useless. In other words, do you think this film’s hypothesis is way off, Frank? Or do you maybe hope so, he he… What, do you think, will be a strictly positive aspect about these personalized, or custom made media, if you will?

    (because it’s so abstract to me, I’m just wondering what you think, you seem to do quite some thinking on this particular subject and your comments usually make things a lot more ‘transparant’ for me.)

  6. Posted December 1, 2004 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Why, thank you :)

    I think it’s a nice theory, and it could become fact, but there are many factors that could and probably will prevent it from happening. First there’s the aspect of static vs. dynamic media which we’ve discussed. (If i recall, the video speaks of digital paper becoming the medium of choice – in the real world we’ve been hearing about it for over 10 years now, and it’s expensive, unpredictable and not remote-controllable. Digital TV will be a better option.) Then there’s the business world; Google buying Amazon is a nice suggestion, but is it profitable? In short, i think there is no vaild businessmodel.

    As for positive aspects. In this world truth is what we believe to be true. If the media (read: business) says red is the color of next season, it will be the color of next season. People won’t need to think about the color of next season; it’s been decided and they’ll stick to it. (Because it’s very good for business, we’ll probably be forced to stick to it.)

    The next part is pure speculation: Dynamic media will create millions of different consumers who are all interested in narrower, more personal chunks of news. As a result of that, many more news sources be created, all with their own point of view (think weblogs). Which in turn will automatically and always lead to us seeing news from multiple angles. Maybe even summarized from different sources with different angles. That might just be a good thing. At least it will stop polarisiation.

  7. Posted December 2, 2004 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Pretty wicked piece of work – nice voice over too. It’s an inversion of the Californian Ideology – no extropianism but dystropianism. SciFi teaches us a lot about the present, however, not so much about the future. And futurists have not been very succesful over the years: most stuff they have predicted never happened and most real time events have never been predicted. That’s why I am an optimist (like a plant bending over to the window, in order to be touched by a beam of sun light). Great post though.

  8. rufus.k
    Posted December 2, 2004 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    virtual space is the virtual place, baby!

  9. Gyz La Riviere
    Posted December 2, 2004 at 1:48 pm | Permalink