3 ms·
Disagree. We're worse off, specifically because of that. Who's following the updates of the articles they read? Very few, much fewer than the already few who
by acct1771 9y ago
Disagree.
We're worse off, specifically because of that.
Who's following the updates of the articles they read? Very few, much fewer than the already few who are reading in the first place.
No, the "mislead and correct after the news cycle" thing is most certainly not an improvement. It might have been different...
- laumars 9y agoFurther to your point, traditional publications used to publish redactions in subsequent publications. Granted they weren't typically in prominent positions; but still more likely to get seen by readers of the original article than online media where readers are unlikely to revisit an article after reading. As for whether we're better or worse off, I don't think we're either. On the one hand people who are interested in the true can more easily investigate it. But on the other hand those that aren't are more easily deceived. Sadly the net average is the latter rather than the former but frankly people will generally sway towards the "truths" that fall more in line with their preconceptions anyway. So the problem could be argued as a wider social / psychological issue rather than one directly related to a change in the way news is consumed.