Submitted 5 weeks ago by Pro@programming.dev to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
This is a general warning to most people, always focus on the accuracy rather than the advocacy part.
Don’t read or share an article just because it aligns with your world view.
News organizations in general are the “middle man” between you and events happening in the world.
Don’t let the middle man shape your reality, focus on accuracy and hopefully you will get a balanced world view.
Trump’s polling has hit a new low! Surely these low opinion polls are the final straw. /s
The one way Bernie could still win the Dem nomination in 2016.
I’m a believer in non-profit news. I donate money to The Guardian because it’s a non-profit newspaper.
But not all for-profit news companies are bad. It largely depends on their business model and their owners.
The New Yorker depends on subscriptions. It has some of the best writers in the english speaking world.
The Information depends on subscriptions. It has the best coverage of Silicon Valley and the Tech Industry.
It’s one of the best, but it’s not free from controversy. Look at their board of directors and where they’ve worked (scroll down).
I mean, yes, but no. I hate (and I mean really, really hate) to admit it, but the success of all the right-wing propaganda as of late has made it undeniable that perception is very capable of creating reality.
Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti covers this topic quite well. (Or so I am told I have not gotten around to reading it yet)
I recognize that news outlets have bills to pay, and I am generally willing to pay for something when it is worth it to me. But they all need to realize that not all of them can get away with a $10-$20 a month subscription fee. That is as unsustainable as the current advertising in every square inch of free space and data broker model.
A far more healthy for the entire news ecosystem would be accounts linked to your online IDP services of choice (Google, Apple, Microsoft, whoever else has one they want to support) and things like Google Pay/Apple Pay. Then you pay some small usage fee like power/water/toll roads. Then how much you give any given outlet depends on how much of their stuff you use.
That would refocus news on being things people want to read and less on advertising influence as well as cut back on the rampant consolidation that is and will continue to come of the current models.
I think they’re mostly creating the world their owners want. I’ve seen articles buried, where you have to have the exact headline to access it.
To go along with what you’re saying, the headline people are usually the biggest problem.
Share the archived version if you really want to.
Don’t read or share an article just because it aligns with your world view.
My guy, this is actually impossible for the average Lemmy user. Unrealistic expectations, sheesh.
It’s as important what they don’t report on. Or the heading placements and wether the story gets burried after half a day. News organizations and politics are heavily connected. In my country it’s very common to go from journalist to member of parliment or PR staff.
qaz@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This sounds so obvious but I’ve seen “news” articles on Lemmy with titles that are on par with Fox news when it comes to playing into what people want to hear.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
I’ve seen people actually share the New York Post unironically because they happen to like a headline.
(The New York Post is a tabloid on par with Fox, in fact they’re owned by the same company as Fox News).
Davriellelouna@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. In Britain, he owns The Sun. In Australia, he owns 90% of newspapers.
NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
They’re both horrible but the NY Post is far more tabloid-y than Fox News proper.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
There are posters here on lemmy who see what’s popular on here and then rehash the same shit on their site and submit it to multiple communities across multiple instances.