It's pretty simple and doesn't take a long article to explain.In a sentence: in order for online-only news sources to make money, their news stories don't need to be accurate or truthful, but rather controversial, in order to get as much web-traffic as possible and make as much money as possible from advertisers who promote on their site.
If that's all the detail you need, feel free to skip to the last paragraph of this article, and be done with it.
But if you would like more detail:
In the days of print paper, something had to be "newsworthy" in order to make it into print. This usually meant that the piece was accurate in its coverage and truthful in its assessment. Papers that had this reputation got subscribers. The news didn't necessarily need to be sensational every day; if one day had relatively "boring" news it didn't matter, the paper would still be delivered to the subscriber, and the subscriber would most likely still read it. This lack of interesting coverage would be made up for the following day, as something interesting was bound to happen. The paper's reputation for accurate and interesting coverage most of the time is what kept subscribers subscribing.
Now, in a digital era, where anyone can create a "news" site, online-only news sources don't need to be "newsworthy" in order to make money. They don't need a sound reputation: they need click bait. The title doesn't need to accurately reflect the content, it need only to get people to click on the content. The writing doesn't need to be good. In fact, these sites couldn't care less if you actually read what is written. All they need is web-traffic: the more people they can get to visit that page, the more money businesses will pay to advertise on that page. In reality, many of these "sensational" news sites are not news sources, but advertisement distributors.
To be clear, I am not opposed to online-only news sources in general. It is wonderful that anyone can create a successful business through news media without the millions in startup costs of a printing press, warehouse, and brick-and-mortar offices. It is wonderful that these sites can be checks on government corruption, and on corruption in the "mainstream media". There are several that are quite dependable. I am not opposed to these. I am opposed to those that make no effort at all to be honest and accurate in their news stories.
A prime example of this is the numerous Huffington Post articles declaring Thanksgiving "National Genocide Day". Before this, not a soul (as far as I am aware) had any qualms about Thanksgiving besides the fact that it is a religious holiday for many. Suddenly, social media erupted with innumerable anti-Thanksgiving tweets and posts. The only problem with this is that the information in the Huffington Post articles was largely inaccurate. Did Huffington Post care? Of course not! They got their millions of views and the millions of dollars from their advertisers. They had successfully monetized Thanksgiving by creating controversy around the false "history" of the holiday.
In many cases, sensational news sources know that the information is false, they just don't care. In fact, the more false it is, the more people will debate it, and the more views they will get.
There is not much that can be done in the way of shutting down these news sites. Legislation against them would be a denial of free speech: they are entitled to say whatever they like, no matter how inaccurate. Promoting a boycott of these sites would most likely only create the Streisand effect. This would also be fallacious, discrediting the source rather than judging a work on its merits, which I have also encouraged.
There is only one real solution, and it is simple: don't believe everything you read. Fact-check information you read--not just from "sensational" news sources, but from anywhere--especially before sharing it on social media, or promulgating lies in conversation. It is essential for our understanding of truth that we do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment