During this weeks symposium the question was raised about how can we truly judge the validity of things we read on the Internet?
For me this is an interesting point. I am the first to admit I scan my Facebook or Twitter feed as my primary news source. Often being dragged in by sites such as Gawker and Buzzfeed (the epitome of ‘non-news news’, aka trashy gossip). With tag lines such as “today’s gossip, tomorrow’s news” I really should look elsewhere. But there is just something about articles titled Woman Arrested For Smuggling Cocaine in Her Fake Boobs and Woman Cited for Climbing into Giraffe Pen, Getting Kicked in the Face that really drag me in.
As a typical Gen Y, I am easily bored. Sites such as these amuse me. Simple. But just how trustworthy a news source are they? I have absolutely no idea. And this is the worrying fact.
Today more and more people turn to online news. They want the news, they want it quick and it needs to be entertaining. These sites, call them gossip, call them news, it doesn’t matter, they simply cater to the growing needs of the consumer. They generate ‘polls’ and articles at an astonishing rate, pumping out masses of text hourly. With the consumer constantly demanding the most up to date news at all times, can we hardly blame them for publishing the odd lie or ’embellishment’ to make a viral article or make it on to a ‘trending now’ list?
To push this idea further Adrian asked how can we trust the validity of anything anyone says? Most large news sources today are censored to a degree. In fact, it could be true to argue that everything we read is tainted. Either by the views of government, business or an individual. It’s difficult to truly believe that any transparent news source exists today. Call me cynical, but even in the content that we choose to write or not write is considered a form of censorship.
An interesting theory, called the Propaganda Model looks at this idea of media censorship in more depth. The model attempts to explain how people are manipulated by the press through five different filters.
During the symposium Adrian asked the panel about how they judge the validity of news. Some common answers were ‘how many people are saying it’, ‘what platform is it on’ and ‘who’s writing it’. I would agree with these, as I also use similar filters.
It was then interesting when Betty mentioned KONY2012. This campaign was viewed on Youtube over 99 million times and endorsed by celebrities, journalists and even some of my closest friends. Surely I can trust them? Major news sources covered the viral sensation and KONY2012 stickers began appearing in my local area. Yet the whole campaign was proven to be untrue and largely out of date and exaggerated.
So it really does come back to the point, how can we trust anything we read?