3 ms·
So you gave another thought. Maybe mass media outlets have always been dubious, but only now with technology and computer literacy we are able to escape them.
by guilhas 10y ago
So you gave another thought. Maybe mass media outlets have always been dubious, but only now with technology and computer literacy we are able to escape them.
... Some will be less quality others wont but essentially they are different.
They don't all follow the same mass media tune, they can be more specialized, less bureaucratic, closer to the source, hold several articles by known independent journalists, journalists will do it out of interest and not because "we need more Trump news!". This also bring disadvantages sometimes, but diversity is key to evolution.
I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. But you can Google "mass media trust" and see that most sources reflect the obvious distrust on mass media. Looking for alternatives is only the next logical step. Or do you have any hard evidence that people will just sit by?
- ivraatiems 10y agoI'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'm waiting on your provision of evidence that high-integrity media institutions are now low (or even at all measurably lower) integrity. Proof that people believe that is not the same as proof that it is true. Once you've furnished that, I'd be happy to continue this discussion and respond to the points you've raised here.
- guilhas 10y agoIt was a rhetoric question. And I quote my comment above: > I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. Here we give opinions based on the little understanding we have about the world. Or would you like to provide evidence to? After all you were the first to claim that alternative media is not as good as mass media. Also any evidence we might present can be portrayed as unreliable, making it unproductive to evidentiate the obvious. So let's stick with opinions, cause I have a day life to attend to.