This is the problem...

2,935 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by garyt73
HumbleAg04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-reports-10000-covid-19-variant-cases-surge/story?id=77553100&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Actual paragraph buried in fear porn article:
" While variants seem to be gaining traction, overall COVID-19 cases in the Sunshine State are slowing. Health officials reported a 4.67% COVID-19 positivity rate on Friday -- the second day in a row that it has dipped below 5%, per state data."
Capitol Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HumbleAg04 said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-reports-10000-covid-19-variant-cases-surge/story?id=77553100&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Actual paragraph buried in fear porn article:
" While variants seem to be gaining traction, overall COVID-19 cases in the Sunshine State are slowing. Health officials reported a 4.67% COVID-19 positivity rate on Friday -- the second day in a row that it has dipped below 5%, per state data."
The media is set up with a horrible business model designed to get clicks for advertising dollars. While I'm a 100% free market guy, given how powerful the media can be overall, it does make me question if there should be a system of checks and balances placed upon the media where the incentive to put attention grabber headlines is no longer there. But in a free society, how would one do that? Seriously, I have no answer....
TxAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah. I'm free market as well so I don't really know what the solution should be. But ad revenue per click has ruined the integrity of journalism - especially online where most people get our information.

People only read headlines and never get to details of an article.
DanHo2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The media largely put themselves in this situation. When the internet first started to take off as a legitimate news source, traditional outlets panicked (maybe justifiably). Newspapers that had always charged 50c to 1.25 made the terrible decision to now give their product away for free. What they should have done is institute paywalls from day 1. Instead they devalued their product in the mind of the consumer, who now expects to get news for only the cost of clicking.
riverrataggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TxAg82 said:

Yeah. I'm free market as well so I don't really know what the solution should be. But ad revenue per click has ruined the integrity of journalism - especially online where most people get our information.

People only read headlines and never get to details of an article.


I mean 100% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION WILL DIE!!!












One day
Legal Custodian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Capitol Ag said:

HumbleAg04 said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-reports-10000-covid-19-variant-cases-surge/story?id=77553100&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Actual paragraph buried in fear porn article:
" While variants seem to be gaining traction, overall COVID-19 cases in the Sunshine State are slowing. Health officials reported a 4.67% COVID-19 positivity rate on Friday -- the second day in a row that it has dipped below 5%, per state data."
The media is set up with a horrible business model designed to get clicks for advertising dollars. While I'm a 100% free market guy, given how powerful the media can be overall, it does make me question if there should be a system of checks and balances placed upon the media where the incentive to put attention grabber headlines is no longer there. But in a free society, how would one do that? Seriously, I have no answer....
Was there something done legislatively to curb the Yellow Journalism back in the late 1800s and early 1900s?

Because that's exactly what this is and needs to be labeled as such.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you pay for your news it's much better. I know it makes me a ****ing snob, but The Economist is best.
HillcountryAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So well stated. The more drama, the more clicks, the more traffic, the more profit. Tough and against my instincts to promote regulation on capitalism in any sense yet this is spreading a lot of disinformation, potentially letting media and politics persuade or dissuade someone seeking objective information.

Very little objective information out there right now. All the slants are making this whole mess a lot worse.

Flame away.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
mazag08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DanHo2010 said:

The media largely put themselves in this situation. When the internet first started to take off as a legitimate news source, traditional outlets panicked (maybe justifiably). Newspapers that had always charged 50c to 1.25 made the terrible decision to now give their product away for free. What they should have done is institute paywalls from day 1. Instead they devalued their product in the mind of the consumer, who now expects to get news for only the cost of clicking.


Supply and demand. They finally had enough competition in the marketplace for the true value of news to be found.

Absolutely nothing.

Just like the opinions held by the majority of people in the profession.
garyt73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am all for free market, but when they are spreading sensationalist lies, the protection should end. Some of this media garbage is akin to yelling fire in a crowded room. Except they are trying to stampede the entire nation. Protection for that should not exist.
88planoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree, but then we have the 'who polices the police' problem, if you will. Who is objective enough to be the arbiter of what is actual fact? When 2 people can watch a video and come to opposite conclusions on exactly what they saw?

It is a mess. Each side proclaims exactly the same thing 'you believe disinformation, your sources are bunk, that isn't true, listen to me and my sources!'
garyt73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It is an unsolvable problem since we are in our current state. At one time this Judgement process could have been governmental/judicial. I dont trust that current group to make decisions for us.
At one time the media could expose truths, and the American populace could make good decisions and bring pressure to bear on decision makers in government. I am not sure I trust "the will of the people" now either since so much has happened to uncenter us.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.