As my students often remind me, news tends to be behind paywalls, while fake news is free.
(Laura Spinney, “Epidemics expert Jonathan Quick: ‘The worst-case scenario for coronavirus is likely,’” theguardian.com, 3-1-20)
(c) 2020 JMN
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
Categories
Meta
Twitter
Tweets by mansfieldnick
EthicalDative 
One only needs to know anything about how the novel coronavirus has come to spread globally to see that “news tends to be behind paywalls, while fake news is free” is highly up for debate. Payed-for news is a business, which quite likely puts business interests, and its connections with powerful contributors before delivering unbiased, and otherwise objective reporting. News providers are now able to see in real time which stories get the most clicks and shares, and thus cater their content to what the market wants to read or watch. The end result is inevitably complicated by telling people what they want to hear, much of which, ironically enough, is that which will outrage them.
I’ve found that the only way I can hope to get unbiased information is from looking at opposing news sources, and looking at debates. I consistently find that left and right leaning new sources, which is virtually all of them, leave out the inconvenient details that don’t support the narrative they are pushing. Conservative sources will consistently foster climate change denial, and liberal ones will cram identity politics down ones throat, for example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s prudent to be contrariwise and agree with disagreement. More than one thing is most often the case, and also not the case. Pith robed in dictum courts rebuttal like junebugs court ducks. So sayeth the laird and gainsayeth the kirk.
LikeLike