The pundits are crazy with analyzing the impact of fake news on the election.
Further, the main stream media are seriously concerned that readers will believe the fake news rather than believe the true news the MSM reports. Regardless of the fake news effect on the election, the MSM are even more concerned on how fake news will be checked in the future. MSM asks who will stop this onslaught of fake news outlets, which get more reader views than the "true news" outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post?
The MSM argues for first amendment rights for itself, but not for others. I suspect the question would not even be asked if MSM had not already given up its claim to reporting accuracy. To protect its own media marketing position, MSM would like to carve out a safe harbor for its own inaccurate news reporting. Of course, there is a distinction between biased news reporting and fake news reporting, but to me it is a distinction without a difference.
Of course, the issue of how many people viewed a fake news report is different than the issue of what part of the electorate voted based on fake news. That issue is not addressed.
There will be a big push by the MSM to compare fake news reporting with hollering fire in a movie theater when no fire is present. It will be a challenge, but the MSM is fighting for its life after disenfranchising itself from the trust of most readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment