3 ms·
Trying not to sound as sensationalist as the original story, but this part specifically had me infuriated: "Hunter has had less luck. Of the news stories, he s
by aschla 3y ago
Trying not to sound as sensationalist as the original story, but this part specifically had me infuriated:
"Hunter has had less luck. Of the news stories, he said: “They’re infuriating but they’re comical if you have the facts… I tried to give the facts to KIRO, I tried to give the facts to Daily Mail, I tried to give the facts to Business Insider. I would send them actual proof of everything, and none of that mattered. They just wanted that [online] engagement.”
How do we solve that problem? Educate people to instead read properly informed news sources that still have journalistic integrity? Hold the journalists to a higher standard and call them out when printing sensationalist stories? Even if they are called out, the damage is usually already done. The press is supposed to check society, but who checks the press?
- jmye 3y agoPeople are supposed to. But just like it’s easier (and more lucrative) to post mistruths for clicks, it’s easier (and more rewarding in terms of interaction and positive reinforcement) to play outrage in your social media reactions. “That was a good article” doesn’t get nearly the thumbs ups or engagement as “that was the worst pile of filth I’ve ever read and here’s why the author is literally Hitler”. Both are also easier than simply paying for legitimate journalism (witness the vast number of articles here instantly posted to an archive site). Society is the failure here - and social media is the medium. I say, unironically, on social media.
- ceejayoz 3y ago“I tried to give the facts to Daily Mail” is just a deeply funny statement.