|
|
#11
09-01-2017, 11:54 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Like, this is already a thing and it has had no effect. not to mention the fact that because the loudest voices tend to skew the conversation and opinion of the largest groups, all the outlets that do this now are just as pandery. The economist had a picture of trump talking to his constituents all wearing KKK hoodies this month. When you pay for news, and 90% of your co-workers dont, and you hear them chattering about the bullshit they read on social network, you wonder, why isnt my pay to read news oulet covering these things? Also when you are a media outlet the bottom dollar is the only thing that matters, so why would you have TWO staff writing teams? one that prints news for the public eye and one that writes news for the private? that's an obscene waste of money, why not just give the pay to read people the same bullshit that the public reads, saving you a ton of money AND your readers wont send you letters about why you dont cover the hot button issues. The only solution is to prevent the bottom from using their voice on social as a marketing platform for the manipulative media. A simple trick that makes social media a billion times better is to go through and hide the news outlet's from each post one of your politically loud friends shares, over a few days, you'll have blocked all media outlets from your social network feed and youll be back to only seeing updates from friends about life events of their own, instead of ones they're reading about. If facebook added a "block media" button that did this, I think the vast majority of people would click it, and it would change the way news is written, the way facebook changed the way news was written over the last 10 years. | |||
|
|
||||
|
|
Threaded Mode