3 ms·
The problem I see is people seem to be cherry-picking the blogs/websites that tell them what they want to hear, rather than actually search for the Truth. So ev
by shishy 7y ago
The problem I see is people seem to be cherry-picking the blogs/websites that tell them what they want to hear, rather than actually search for the Truth. So even if you make a source that presents news in an unbiased way, it might never get discovered because it'll get lost in the sea of "information" out there.
And if you have the most unbiased source out there, someone else with an agenda can push it as an us vs. them narrative and cause the potential audience to simply avoid your site (or view it in their lens).
- estebarb 7y agoMaybe it could be pushed as a web browser/crawler feature: mark sites as fake news? But I'm sure it would be used by bad governments to do more harm than good... :'(
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoI miss Jon Stewart. What you need is someone who can present real news as entertainment instead of presenting entertainment as real news, which is what he did in a way that none of his acolytes have faithfully replicated (not even when they were on the same show in the same episode). Because you have to be willing to make fun of anyone for being wrong instead of just making fun of The Other Team for being The Other Team. But in general it feels like there is an answer in that format. Because people want to be entertained. If they're not being entertained then you've lost them. But you can entertain them and inform them at the same time, if you actually take that as a goal and consciously work toward it. A good professor doesn't bore the students yet they still learn the material. But there is a difference between that and just making partisan propaganda humorous enough to get people to watch it.
- badrabbit 7y agoIf there's a platform that rewards neutrality and eliminates partiality,you can at least have something you can point people to. It doesn't need to be a source itself.