In a prior post I lamented the difficulty in ascertaining facts from today’s news media. The internet has contributed additional sources of information than existed in the past. The task of sorting through fact and exaggeration is very difficult. Most people now go to “platforms” for news. It looks to Papa like the platforms are more steering conduits than actual news sources. But, that alone is not new. Getting facts from the news was ever easy. The term “Yellow Journalisn” was coined because the conflict between sensationalism and fact was a long standing hallmark of American journalism. It wasn’t new but in the late 1800’s competition for readers became so intense that two newpaper icons (Pulitzer and Hearst) are often credited with contributing to the Spanish American War. “Remember The Maine!” As a side note, view the iconic movie “Citizen Kane.” (Sorry, black and white film.)
I also mentioned detecting bias in news reporting during my younger years. In retrospect it seems a bit quaint that for a time at least most of the media seemed engaged in attempts of a more gentle manner in swaying public opinion one way or the other. I found it understandable and acceptable that varying opinions existed and could be debated in open forums. It was subtle but there were identifiable political leanings in various news publications.
An interesting movie prompted me to join FACEBOOK to see what it was all about. (I still do not get its draw but the film “The Social Network” was quite good.) However, in regard to news, if one relies heavily on platforms for news consumption, one also surrenders “choice.” A variety of headlines and subjects are offered when opening the news section of a platform but no matter how it is viewed it amounts to steering the reader. If it is used as a screening device and the reader does independent research on topics in an indepth fashion in followup that is another matter. But, otherwise, a consumer is a sitting duck.
“Yellow Journalism” of course also pushed and pulled readers in various directions. Pulitzer might have emphasised a viewpoint while Hearst poo-pooed it, but there was a choice of one newspaper over the other. Subscribers were certainly free to ignore one for the other. The same is essentially true today except that if “social platforms” are used exclusively to access news, it is not simply the consumer who might favor one viewpoint over another. The platform itself can block. As an exmple, whereas the NY Times dampened a story’s truth while its rival the NY Post credited facts about the President’s son’s laptop before the 2020 election, readers could digest and accept or reject the respective views. However, social platforms added a destructive layer to the disemination of news when it censured/blocked one version to all its users. That action reached far more consumers than the number of subscribers to both New York newspapers. It certainly looked like more than steering or bias when a black out of a newspaper happens. Beware in your consumption of news. Use common snse and keep digging for facts and truth. It is good for the soul.