148
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
148 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
863 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel that with the advent of social media and the freedom to read same news incident from multiple sources in a matter of minutes, the news sources are forced to pick a side. There's more activism and less journalism.
There used to be 1-2 activist newspapers, but now even the big ones have to choose sides
For sure, at least in the past journalists would maintain a pretense of impartiality
No they didn't. There's a famous quote that in the early 20th century newspapers didn't just report the news they made the news. Newspapers have always had "fake news" and they've always taken sides and had agendas
It got so bad we had a war because of fake news, so we passed some laws to not let it happen again, then Ronald Reagan got those laws removed, and we are back after it.