3 ms·
Sincerely, I don't think the answer to the problem is to read stuff that's clearly biased from the other side as well, but to rethink journalism in the modern a
by jbmorgado 10y ago
Sincerely, I don't think the answer to the problem is to read stuff that's clearly biased from the other side as well, but to rethink journalism in the modern age so that it can go back to actually be more moderate, factual and professional as it was 2 decades ago when reputable journals wouldn't go for the clickbait.
I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that now is difficult to find even in major journals.
- gnicholas 10y agoYou identify one of the important structural problems — that media outlets have partisan audiences, which for business reasons they need to keep happy. This means that an outlet like Vox will continue writing from a liberal perspective, and using headlines that get traction on platforms like Facebook. If they stray too far from their current strategy, their existing audience will disappear. And they have nothing to gain by becoming more moderate, since they have very few readers who are not liberal (who would read more from them if their coverage was more moderate) We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.