Originally posted by Jog On
View Post
Exactly. There are varying levels of quality and depth of information. Financial Times versus The Sun.
The websites you're referring to: how do you know which ones are of high quality information and journalism and which ones are simply a guy in his bedroom churning out articles, copied from other sources, with inflammatory wording replacing more informative wording?
Accountability is important. The fact that in recent times some mainstream news sources have allowed their credibility to lax does not therefore mean these questionable sources you are citing are suddenly credible and worthy of your belief! The solution is to improve the mainstream news sources, not simply rely on random websites with no credibility.
Credibility is earned. Inflammatory articles get hits because they cause excitement and push you deeper within your own thought bubble; much like facebook does with filtered posts, to ensure you mostly see things that you agree with or that your thought process approves of.
Edit: Just to add - I can see exactly where you are coming from, but it is illogical. All these decades we were manipulated by mainstream media (aka: media that built it's reputation for reporting up over decades - of course with mistakes; mistakes are part of human existence) and now you have the freedom to read any angle on an event you wish. But in those angles: they aren't reported for good reason, they are often nonsense and purely to induce partisan thinking. I find the glimmer of quality only in broadsheets these days - Daily Mail, Sun, et al, can die as far as I am concerned. They are almost as bad as ZeroHedge.
Comment