| > Perhaps they could work hard at reporting the news and not reporting their opinion. This is a bit of a confusing comment, and it's almost like an algorithmic reply - which anecdotally is the status quo. Maybe you can develop this idea a little bit? Because the "Alternative Media" is for the vast majority opinion and entertainment-driven, people have no problem consuming that information and taking it for facts. This is done with ZERO accountability or responsibility, because once in a while it's thrown "Hey folks, I'm just an actor/comedian/hobbyist/retired X" and then spreads misinformation. Unlike News outlets, if they get something wrong and acknowledge it, all hell breaks loose. It is extremely unbalanced to demand perfection from News while at the same time having a loose leash for alternative media — many of alternative media celebrities have way more resources than news outlets, and no standards. It's almost like people prefer the illusion of understanding subjects based on sound bites (like, for example, your broad generic remark), instead of trying to think a bit more deeply and look at things for themselves. No wonder, this takes time, and effort, and most of the times it ain't fun to do research. You had an election cycle that was heavily influenced by years of repeated conspiracy theories, post-truth commentary, and attacks on institutions like science. Most of this content has very little quality or barely any production value, being one of the most common formats just people sitting at a table with microphones - they're not Netflix productions. Yet you claim News outlets' production is of low quality. So yeah, it would be great if you could expand more on your idea instead of making a shallow remark like it's coming from some great insight you've developed yourself. Which news organizations are you referring to? Can you give some examples? What would you do differently to improve on those examples? |