4 ms·

There is a difference between bias and factual error. The suggestion being made is that articles are being spread with gross factual inaccuracies (intentional o

There is a difference between bias and factual error. The suggestion being made is that articles are being spread with gross factual inaccuracies (intentional or not) at a higher rate than previously. No one is suggesting that misinformation and bias didn't exist previously, the suggestion is that it is spreading at a greater rate. To conflate bias with misinformation to the extent of exclusion as you are suggesting seems unnecessarily harsh to me. MSM had it's problems always, but it is incomparable to the basic factual inaccuracy prevalent in social media and the internet pundits that exist today. That can be argued, but it is a separate point.

viridian 7y ago
The MSM people are most likely to consume (cable news, and random articles from large, reputable sources) are at a low in the US that hasn't been seen since at least the days following 9/11. I'm sure the modern political shock jocks are worse than their counterparts a decade ago as well, but media as a whole has a huge problem with forming high ROI narratives, and finding the facts that back that story. I think the problem is bigger than just media though, it's a downstream problem from the war on the attention of average person. When people suggest trying to solve for Cambodian clickbait mills, it seems to me that they are just treating the small symptoms of a worse problem.