|
sanshee wrote: A debate today in parliament regarding 'fake news'.
No one wants fake news, and my way of avoiding it has always been to turn to the 'main stream media'.
The very term, 'main stream media', is used derogatively.
Why, I have never known.
I will read articles in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Morning Star, The Spectator, Spiked, The Observer, The Times, The Independent, and more.
That means I am receiving news from different political slants, but it's still the truth.
Yes Corbyn has meetings with Gerry Adams, that is the truth. Some report this as him being a terrorist sympathiser, others as him playing his part in the peace process.
It is true they had meetings, and it is up to you to consider why.
Crying 'Torygraph' to me is as helpful as crying 'left wing scum'.
And yes, at times I am irritated by what I read, but I'm big enough to take it.
And there is accountability because there is a real, identifiable source.
I don't care to visit echo chambers, I don't need any prejudice I have (for prejudices come in all forms) to be ratified.
On our quest to be salved, we kind of bring 'fake news' on ourselves.
Rant done;)
Why was flyer-dropping once one of wartime's most valuable weapons? Because people, faced with the written word printed on a corporeal object, think it must be true. It's a habit that's drummed into us from the moment we open our first textbook at school. Even if we know for a fact that something is injurious doggerel, there it is in print...
Newsstands full of editorials posing as articles are harmful. I avoid them, except maybe to sneak an occasional voyeuristic peak, even though I know I'l only feel despondent straight after. I'm sure, much as you like to imagine yourself gracefully skating around the opinions and straight to the facts, even your thoughts on events are shaped by the form in which they're delivered. The very fact that a certain story is being published at all is a choice. Imagine how someone more credulous must react to news slanted based on their chosen paper's shareholders' predilections? It is something in dire need of debating, as a few rich newspaper owners shouldn't be able to determine world events.
|
