11–20 of 69 posts
Edit: typos.
> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I will rely on for accurate reporting." Boy, would I like to know which sites.
But to answer your question, I'd say the best bet is to follow the money. Sites that rely on subscriber revenue are more likely to have good journalism standards than sites based on ad revenue.
> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I will rely on for accurate reporting." Boy, would I like to know which sites.
I’d start with sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat. So probably subscription sites like the Economist and Wall Street Journal, and public news sources like NPR and PBS. Though for the latter there is the pressure of government to consider.
What makes you think they don't rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat?
> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I will rely on for accurate reporting." Boy, would I like to know which sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d start with sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat. So probably subscription sites like the Economist and Wall Street Journal, and public news sources like NPR and PBS. Though for the latter there is the pressure of government to consider.
I often browse the Australian ABC news site and have definitely noted a government influence on it, mostly the anti-China bent of many of the opinion and essay style articles. Interestingly, whenever censorship of the ABC comes up, the ABC is often the most reliable and up to date source of current events. It gives me a little faith in my country's democracy.
This whole fake news thing is interesting for me, the author mentioned that real honest news just don’t get as many clicks. At the end of the day I think we’re tuned to sensationalist things that trigger our emotion in some ways much like the feeling we get when we watch movies or read fictitious writings. Because of social media and being driven my vanity metrics all the time have we as a collective lost the ability…
I don't think so. Even people who frequently click on fake news articles probably would accept the content they read is probably fake. Those articles satisfy curiosity and relief from boredom on a level that's different from the one we use to think critically. Even if the content is fake does not mean that it is not fulfilling its purpose or even harming readers' ability to see it as fake.
I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.
Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting smaller by the minute. This is exactl…
Which weekly newspaper? I'd love a recommendation. For me, this used to be The Economist, but either the quality of their journalism has gone down, or I've become better informed and thereby also more discerning.