It’s worse. We are reverting back to the age of lügenpresse and hearsay comes in short-form video formats.
Many people simply do not care (or are even aware) if a source is trusted if the message aligns with their own bias or the message is presented as a new “fact”. Trust is irrelevant, unfortunately.
Basically, except the newspapers of today no longer care about reputation. They only care about clicks, the bottom line, and speed. Accuracy is no longer a primary focus.
No because in the 1800s you could argue their was a thing called journalism. Now a days the debate between clicks and news means there isn’t going to be trust worthy news because it’s brought to you by Amazon AWS.
Definitely agree for the most part. I would say that independent news like AP, and the Guardian (arguably), do have reputations they try to uphold, but I hear you
My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of things that look like a newspaper but are just very long editorials. On the other end we still have a few kinda reputable sources that actually do some journalism work (debunking, actually investigating on site, arguing …).
Journalism and all forms of counter power look super weak in my county but mixing everything up just makes the important work even weaker.
Yeah, though it doesn’t help that there are fewer and fewer sources to rely on. It just takes one large bribe to break an organisation, and the less orgs there are, the smaller the bribe needs to be…
Aren’t we bringing about an era where you can’t trust what you see or hear, unless it comes from a source you trust?
Essentially aren’t we just reverting back to 1800s where news came from newspapers of reputation, and hearsay came from elsewhere
It’s worse. We are reverting back to the age of lügenpresse and hearsay comes in short-form video formats.
Many people simply do not care (or are even aware) if a source is trusted if the message aligns with their own bias or the message is presented as a new “fact”. Trust is irrelevant, unfortunately.
How is that different to before the 1800?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g back then they also burned witches because of hearsay.
Basically, except the newspapers of today no longer care about reputation. They only care about clicks, the bottom line, and speed. Accuracy is no longer a primary focus.
No because in the 1800s you could argue their was a thing called journalism. Now a days the debate between clicks and news means there isn’t going to be trust worthy news because it’s brought to you by Amazon AWS.
Definitely agree for the most part. I would say that independent news like AP, and the Guardian (arguably), do have reputations they try to uphold, but I hear you
My thoughts exactly. There are a lot of things that look like a newspaper but are just very long editorials. On the other end we still have a few kinda reputable sources that actually do some journalism work (debunking, actually investigating on site, arguing …).
Journalism and all forms of counter power look super weak in my county but mixing everything up just makes the important work even weaker.
Yeah, though it doesn’t help that there are fewer and fewer sources to rely on. It just takes one large bribe to break an organisation, and the less orgs there are, the smaller the bribe needs to be…