3 ms·
1. they don't need to agree. you decide who you trust. 2. the msn example is about nyt loudly and visibly updating a report. I don't see how that is an examp
by froh 5y ago
1. they don't need to agree. you decide who you trust.
2. the msn example is about nyt loudly and visibly updating a report. I don't see how that is an example about the claim. other than msn thinks it's a good idea to misrepresent a visible and cleanly tagged article update as "quiet update"
- CharlesW 5y ago> they don't need to agree. you decide who you trust. But how do you make that decision? People will choose sources whose news hews to their worldview, no?
- froh 5y agodidn't they in the past as well? and wasn't it a matter of education (as in humanities) if you'd occasionally also skimmed newspapers and journals of not-your-tribe? which includes my personal thought about this dilemma: education. democratic consensus that our society is built on certain values, one of which is the ability to deliberately ponder and discern "news". I understand I live in a country privileged with proportional representation, which is much less prone to polarization than a fptp by district congress. good luck to all of us..