In the article it addresses how people still primarily use the "trusted" news networks for information about war. This means that many of those different perspectives are ignored and the the MSM's ideas are then spread the same as it always has been. I believe the Reason for this is that people don't read alternative news coverage for that fact that the internet makes it very hard to prove credibility.
What could turn this around? Personally it would be hard but possibly and company could be created and made to verify authors who wish to earn a credibility mark. This would be similar to safety locks on certain sites that show it is secure. Well the same could be done for credibility. I think, and this is just a suggestion, that this could help people open up to the alternative sites for their information creating, hopefully, a more critical public. I think unless the word can get out and credibility can be reliably established online people will still generally stay in their safety zone of MSM for their knowledge on news in general and especially on something that is more sensitive and serious like war.
I guess what I'm saying is that I do agree with what is said and that the fix isn't simple but possible. Credibility is key and especially online where there are many users able to things unchecked that credibility becomes extremely hard to manage. However i think that a credibility signifier that is genuine and recognizable could fix a lot of the lost perspectives. Perspectives that are reasonable and true and rid the false and sometimes more emotional and false biased news coverage that is possible on the internet. I think credibility online will take a while to establish because it seems to evolve so fast, but it's definitely possible.
It's almost like news is a joke, and here is an example that gives alternative a bad light despite it being a joke:
No comments:
Post a Comment