3 ms·
My thinking was just that the efficacy of nasty comments is probably higher when you have readers who don't trust a publication, the writers, or editors. I thin
by logn 14y ago
My thinking was just that the efficacy of nasty comments is probably higher when you have readers who don't trust a publication, the writers, or editors. I think a lot of people assume newspapers are politically biased, but in reality I think they are biased by their desire to appear non-biased, their goal to go easy on people to get further interviews/access with them, and also their role as the mouthpiece for corporations and entrenched government power.
- jasonlotito 14y ago> My thinking was just that the efficacy of nasty comments is probably higher when you have readers who don't trust a publication, the writers, or editors. I disagree. Oh, I'm sure if you dislike the source, you are more apt to dismiss them. What I disagree with is the nature of these comments and who they are coming from. Nasty comments are most likely coming from people who disagree with the premise presented in the article, not who is writing the article. There is also the study that shows that other comments will induce you into taking one side or another. Any comment you make can easily be just as volatile. Point is, the epidemic has nothing to do with the source, but rather, the message. I do not have enough faith that all those nasty comments are from people who've done proper research into what reporters and newspapers strive to do. In the end, it's easier to blame someone else for your failings at civility.