Here's the problem. The Internet exists. In the past, journalists could frame stories certain ways, spin a narrative because a story is easier to digest and follow along with than a dry recitation of facts. And most people generally accepted that what they were being told was roughly true.
With the Internet, people can start asking questions and checking for answers. "Is what the journalist telling me true? Did they leave something out? What did they leave out? Does this reporter have a habit of leaving certain details out so the story is slanted in a certain way? What kinds of sources are being used here? Are the statistics involved being accurately characterized and represented? What kinds of stories are being told to the public and what kinds are being ignored?"
And, again and again, problems arose. Bloggers, social media types, and anyone with a search bar could look at stories and realize they were either A) being blatantly lied to B) being told one heavily biased side of the story or C) being politically manipulated by the narrative being shaped by the writer.
That eroded a lot of trust. And now that the social media aspect of the Internet has been chugging along for a good 25 years, an entire infrastructure has arisen that exists solely to poke at journalists when they're not being objective and unbiased.
Which is a lot of them. A whole lot of them. A lot of journalism has transformed into partisanship and activism. You can agree with that or disagree with that. I disagree with it, because I think the more activist a journalist is, the more motivation they have to dispense with facts and narratives that don't adhere to the story they want to be true - or at least the version of the story they want their readers to believe is true.
Look at Gaza. Anyone who believes any story coming out of that on its surface is either naive, foolish, or motivated. The bias is crazy all around. The cherry-picking of facts. The narratives being spun. What gets mentioned, what gets left out. It's an extreme example, but the problems that are obvious and troubling there are occurring on smaller levels all throughout media.
How much sympathy am I suppose to have for people who repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot on issues of credibility? DU spends all day everyday complaining about the media. Is it included in the admonition?
I agree with the middle section of the article that "doing your own research" can lead people down a distorted road. There are a few reasons for that, and they each depend on the individual doing their own research. 1) Some people just want what they're reading to be untrue because it doesn't adhere to their worldview. So they go find sources that are more agreeable to their preset ideas. This isn't "research". This is thumb-sucking. Comfort countering. 2) Some people don't know how to laterally read articles, and so they go with what Google tells them. Terrible idea. They don't know if the source is credible. 3) Appeal to Cooperative Bias. Probably a type people are infinitely familiar with. "Well, this person on Twitter agrees with me." Find a bunch of social media posts in order to build an impression of mass agreement - bandwagon fallacy.
This article is interesting, because it successfully identifies symptoms - and even some good solutions - while ignoring the underlying disease. People don't believe what they're being told, because journalism as it currently exists kind of sucks. That's why they do these things. I realize the Columbia Journalism Review isn't exactly going to sit there and say, "Yeah, a lot of this is our bad, guys." But it is funny to watch them talk around it.
At the end of the day, the solution is simple. Use primary sources when possible. Find complete sources of information (the lack of raw poll data in recent news stories is driving me quietly crazy). Cross check against other credible sources if a story is coming from a biased publication. If you're pulling information from social media, triple check that shit.
But all of that only works if the person is interested in knowing true things. In a polarized nation, we're people who are increasingly interested in knowing only politically useful things. So it is no surprise when "doing your own research" leads you to exactly where you wanted to go anyway.
= new reply since forum marked as read
