Stage Four
RedState Insider's post, "Yes, There Is A Problem With The Media... But It Might Not Be What You Think" is most likely intended for an audience with relatively conservative viewpoints. There is no specific listed author, which is a little troubling, but the article was at least credited to the site's staff rather than a personal username, as some of the other posts appear to be.
The article's central claim is that the largest problem plaguing the media is not bias, but rather the increasing rapidity of the news cycle, which asks for more content for a wider audience in less time, leading to a high proportion of errors. The article goes on to give examples of journalism corrupted by single unreliable sources and incomplete fact-checking. The authors begin by discussing major sources, and then move on to refuting the claim that local news is more reliable by discussing gaffes made by smaller news teams. A secondary point the article makes is that more Americans are becoming distrustful of national news and turning to local stations, citing the increased funding of these stations, but cautions against putting to much faith with them.
It is strange, however, that the article warns against unidentified sources when the authors' names are not clearly visible, and stranger still that the cautionary tale of unreliable news ends with an endorsement of the site itself.
The article's central claim is that the largest problem plaguing the media is not bias, but rather the increasing rapidity of the news cycle, which asks for more content for a wider audience in less time, leading to a high proportion of errors. The article goes on to give examples of journalism corrupted by single unreliable sources and incomplete fact-checking. The authors begin by discussing major sources, and then move on to refuting the claim that local news is more reliable by discussing gaffes made by smaller news teams. A secondary point the article makes is that more Americans are becoming distrustful of national news and turning to local stations, citing the increased funding of these stations, but cautions against putting to much faith with them.
It is strange, however, that the article warns against unidentified sources when the authors' names are not clearly visible, and stranger still that the cautionary tale of unreliable news ends with an endorsement of the site itself.
Comments
Post a Comment