It requires a bit of critical thinking and knowing your sources. Eg telling when you’re looking at a puff piece written to gain access vs a serious investigation.
Kaboom@reddthat.com 3 days ago
That’s the problem these days. There’s just no trust, and I blame the news for it. We’ve all read an article on something we know about, and has that article be so ass-backwards it’s baffling. And then you start thinking to yourself, if they got that article so terribly wrong, what else are they getting wrong?
silence7@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 3 days ago
Once upon a time you had to present both sides in order to keep your operating license. There’s no reason we couldn’t do a similar thing today that covered OTA broadcast, cable, and social media companies, except for the fact that rich people don’t want the public to be informed. If it was up to me, advertising during news or opinion pieces would be prohibited entirely. News should cost companies money, not generate it.
Impleader@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Shouldn’t there be a bigger focus on getting misinformation out of the media rather than giving all opposing viewpoints equal airtime? IMO, the reason why a good chunk of the US believes in wacky fringe theories and has no faith in traditional scientific institutions is that our media tends to present, for example, RFK and Anthony Fauci as equivalent authorities on vaccines.
Making or allowing demonstrably false statements to be made on air should be sanctioned as a matter of public policy.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The ‘both sides’ nonsense is one of the reasons climate change was so widely doubted. Every yahoo with an opinion got his 5 seconds of fame spouting nonsense on the news.
quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 2 days ago
There’s no both sides.
Just facts, research, and interviews with people directly involved and field experts.