3 ms·
I agree with most of what you said, but you aren't being honest or charitable to the news anchors and you didn't present your argument in a respectful way. I re
by knaik94 3y ago
I agree with most of what you said, but you aren't being honest or charitable to the news anchors and you didn't present your argument in a respectful way. I remember this compilation of a bunch of news networks saying the same talking points in a similar cadence. These kind of mandatory talking points undermine the value and purpose of local news reporting.
I personally don't think local news still has the same value it did in a pre-broadband time. The primary source is now accessible directly, through social media. And in my opinion, a lot of powerful journalism and journalism adjacent independent reporting happens on youtube/twitter. This independence allows better and nuanced reporting that otherwise wasn't possible. Paper media is on a decline, paper news has been dead for a while. I imagine any paper that refused to embrace the internet is gone now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
- bilbo0s 3y agoI don't know much about journalism, but I do know a bit about information gathering. A primary source that is social media based? Well let's just say I just wouldn't stake a large force on that information, and I wouldn't advise you do so either. If it actually counts, social media is not terribly reliable these days.
- knaik94 3y agoI agree, but I specifically meant in the context of local news, people are accessible in a way most weren't pre-broadband. Even the largest news organizations and presentations have started using zoom call recordings in segments. I agree with you that social media is terrible at meaningful filtering and aggregation. Verifying a source will always be a necessary part of journalism, regardless of medium.