4 ms·

I hear this reasoning regularly, and I'm still not convinced of it. I don't necessarily think the old way was "good", but the "least bad" workable solution. Cen

by untog 8y ago

I hear this reasoning regularly, and I'm still not convinced of it. I don't necessarily think the old way was "good", but the "least bad" workable solution. Centralised media and so on do have inherent biases, but they are also held accountable when they publish incorrect information. The problem we have today is not that information is widely available, but that disinformation is widely available and all but impossible to distinguish from real information. We're seeing time and time again, in elections across the world, that false propaganda spread virally through social media is having a meaningful effect on the way people vote. I, too, would love to imagine that a "general skepticism over new information" will develop, but we're not seeing any signs of that. If anything it's the opposite.

aeternus 8y ago
Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. Who exactly is holding them accountable and to what? I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I also wonder how much of this 'fake news' people actually believe vs. using it as justification for their existing beliefs & non-rational biases. Globalization, LGBT rights, open trade, open borders, etc. have happened relatively quickly and people resist change.
- untog 8y ago
  > Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. They can, yes. But we know who purchases them, and can make educated guesses towards the intent behind buying such a thing. For instance, the mass purchase by Sinclair of local TV stations in the US. We couldn't stop that from happening, but it meant that when there was a sharp shift in the news coverage those channels provided, we knew why. > I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I'm not going to argue with that- like I said, the current system isn't perfect. But the likes of the NYT, BBC, WaPo, WSJ etc. do issue corrections on stories, and are held accountable, broadly, by each other and the public at large, because what they publish is public and known. By contrast, the new world we find ourselves in where posts can be advertised to specific audiences isn't public - not really - so there can't be any accountability at all.

by untog 8y ago

aeternus 8y ago

Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. Who exactly is holding them accountable and to what? I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I also wonder how much of this 'fake news' people actually believe vs. using it as justification for their existing beliefs & non-rational biases. Globalization, LGBT rights, open trade, open borders, etc. have happened relatively quickly and people resist change.

untog 8y ago
> Those 'intermediate' media companies can be purchased. They can, yes. But we know who purchases them, and can make educated guesses towards the intent behind buying such a thing. For instance, the mass purchase by Sinclair of local TV stations in the US. We couldn't stop that from happening, but it meant that when there was a sharp shift in the news coverage those channels provided, we knew why. > I'd argue that both Fox News & MS NBC are biased to the point of being useless for informational purposes and objective thought. I'm not going to argue with that- like I said, the current system isn't perfect. But the likes of the NYT, BBC, WaPo, WSJ etc. do issue corrections on stories, and are held accountable, broadly, by each other and the public at large, because what they publish is public and known. By contrast, the new world we find ourselves in where posts can be advertised to specific audiences isn't public - not really - so there can't be any accountability at all.