The responsibility for differentiating between opinion/blogs and news anchors fell on us a long time ago. What we need is more people trained in critical thinking and less anti-intellectuals.
The doesn't change the fact that they are using their platform to spread trash and then acting like it's not their responsibility because "it's just a blog". Either they are a responsible news agency or they are not and then we should put them all in the same category as Breitbart.
I see what you're saying and agree to some extent. But we cannot expect the media outlets to take care of that any more than we can expect the government to provide personal security. All we can do is be prepared, in the case of media that includes being careful about sources. There's no way media outlets give up the controversial and inflammatory opinions that feed them.
Placing something in the blog, opinion or ad section does not mean that the news staff believes it to be true or factual. You seem to want a news source to contain only facts and imply that if that source contains anything else, even clearly labeled (or placed) as "other than news" it is still to apt to be confused with (considered as?) news.
They provide a platform for it and therefor are condoning and supporting it. That's a fact.
Then we should stop acting like a media outlet can distance themselves from being responsible for it and the "it's just a blog" doesn't work as an excuse. This also automatically puts them in the lower tiers of news sources and pretty much leaves us with no media outlets with a shred of integrity.
They provide a platform for it and therefor are condoning and supporting it. That's a fact.
OK, then stop watching any channel that has misleading ads or opinions that you dislike. I will continue to try to discern fact from opinion or advertising hype. Keep in mind that the vast majority of media bias is simply by omission which means that the fewer sources that you view then the greater the chance that you will miss something important.
They're providing an outlet for opinions because it makes them money. I'm not sure that should be construed as condoning and supporting.
We must discern news from opinion. A college education is usually enough. Even those without college can generally manage some level of critical thinking. I don't think we should be claiming victimhood or blaming internet and cable news for difficulties, we should be empowering ourselves.
If they provide the platform, that's both condoning and supporting. If they didn't, that platform wouldn't be provided.
These days people can barely be bothered to read past a title. You think they are going to care if it says blog or not? You think reading a blog on the NYT or WaPo isn't treated with more credibility than reading someone blog here on DP or on their Facebook or something?
The reality is, it's doing exactly what they want it to do with the weakest of excuses to distance themselves from it.
I disagree. Providing a platform for free speech does not condone or support the opinions of those taking opportunity to speak out.
Is giving a protest permit condoning or supporting the protesters' message?
They are a private organization and are not required to provide said permits. Providing permits, when required to by law, is fulfilling your duty.
But the concept remains the same. Providing a platform labeled "opinion, not ours" is not an endorsement of opinions. I get that they are likely to only allow raucous opinions in accordance with their lean but we cannot discount our ability, at least in theory, to not be victims of it.
I don't think we should protect people from it, I think we should educate people to be able to protect themselves.
Wait...I'm not saying they should be regulated out or restricted from doing such things. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and it ruins even the facade of integrity and impartiality. They may as well be barely one step up from tabloids.
Wait...I'm not saying they should be regulated out or restricted from doing such things. I'm just saying it's irresponsible and it ruins even the facade of integrity and impartiality. They may as well be barely one step up from tabloids.
And you believe this behavior to be new?The doesn't change the fact that they are using their platform to spread trash and then acting like it's not their responsibility because "it's just a blog". Either they are a responsible news agency or they are not and then we should put them all in the same category as Breitbart.
And you believe this behavior to be new?
They basically have a tabloid section. People like it. It makes them money. It's up to us, especially in debate, to criticize sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?