I think with the current state of the media landscape everyone of us is in a dilemma. Who should I trust? Which sources are reliable and trustworthy? I think everyone has to decide for themselves. Though usually we should go through media education to differentiate between fake news and the truth. However here begins the first problem. I think postmodernists deconstructed the concept of truth. Nowadays the left and the right has an own version of what that term means. It is part of the polarization that is going on in Western countries. There are even people who doubt whether an objective truth exists. Many media outlets pretend they are committed to the truth and objectivity. Some outlets try the neutrality standpoint (and fail). I think CNN currently tries that approach and humiliates itself. Many media outlets struggle financially. Seemingly Buzzfeed and VICE barely gain financial profits. The whole media ecosystem suffers of that. They are dependent on advertisers and corrupt themselves by that. However the specific problems differ from country to country and it depends on the medium. I think almost all US broacasting stations are heavily biased because they shy away from attacking the elite. It is obvious that noone wants to pay for a CNN streaming service. Many TV broadcasters rig the game rules in favor of them. It is evident on youtube. Youtube is scared of losing advertisers. I think some years ago there were ads under a neo Nazi video and the demonetization wave started. Since then they favored authoritative "official sources". I know that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC count as reliable source. I am not sure whether Russia today was one but I think yes. I think the conclusion is clear these labels are useless.
Youtube is just lazy and greedy. Most large internet companies for example Facebook, Alphabet, Twitter prefer money over integrity. They should hire enough staff to monitor their content. These people deserve enough money and a good psychological treatment. Especially if the staff has to watch many graphic videos. The environment in which the people currently work is horrific. People develop PTSD because of that. And it is ridiculous the companies have so much money but don't invest in providing quality. No wonder people distrust the elite when Youtube a major platform rigs the game in favor of them. Furthermore the algorithms are shady and the public should have the right for transparency in this instance.
Maybe I should go to another point. I have the feeling the internet is like an ocean full of information. And it is pretty hard to navigate through. There are many media and human biases which make things difficult. For example the confirmation bias. We like to choose outlets which reinforce our own worldview. I think there are many different standpoints in the media landscape. But I refer to the German media landscape. I think the choice is difficult. I choose a mix. But I have to say I am a media and news junkie. I love to compare the different perspectives. And I read many many outlets. I think maybe it is easier to say which outlets mostly spread fake news. But it is harder to diiferentiate between the differences of truthworthy outlets. The nuances are way way more difficult to spot. And I am trying to find out which emphasis each outlet has.
I think most people will never waste as much time with reading so many outlets. And maybe that is a good thing. I try to read more scientifical articles recently and I stop to read medium quality media articles. Here is what I listen to/read. A German leftwing magazine, a very right-wing newspaper in German language, US independent (leftwing) media, German public broadcasting, sometimes other left or conservative German newspapers, some American journals on foreign policy. And some German journals mostly to look at the media system from a meta perspective. I love to compare the narratives which are present. For example that journalists often behave like sheep when they search for new topics. That issues appear and vanish often in an insane speed and we often don't learn the end of a story. That the choice which topics are talked about is heavily influenced by the factor whether they are attractive for the audience. For example climate change is sometimes not very attractive to talk about. A complicated corruption scandal where one has to dive deep into it to understand the context. I think many in the media system posture themselves as the defender of the average Joe and Jane while they are secretly following the agenda of big companies and lobbies. Moreover when one reads scietifical sources one realizes pretty fast that many discussions in the media only scratch the surface of the issues. Often they just strawman positions. They act like the viewer had to decide between two standpoints while both of them are bullshit and simply want to deceive the listener. In German one would call that an "illusional debate". The purpose is not to educate the people. The reasons instead are infotainment, virtue signaling and to distract from the really important topics which would demand our full attention.
So how do you decide whether a source is trustworthy? I looked into the different outlets myself. But I also listened to experts which sources provide the highest quality. At the same time I try to be aware of media biases and follow independent media as a countermeasure in order to avoid living in a bubble. Moreover I follow outlets where the opinions annoy me or make me angry. For the sake to counter the confirmation bias.
Do you struggle to find a trustworthy sources? One can easily fall into a paranoia and start to question everything. Do you have some advices or rules how to navigate through that ocean of information? It can be overwhelming for sure from time to time.
Youtube is just lazy and greedy. Most large internet companies for example Facebook, Alphabet, Twitter prefer money over integrity. They should hire enough staff to monitor their content. These people deserve enough money and a good psychological treatment. Especially if the staff has to watch many graphic videos. The environment in which the people currently work is horrific. People develop PTSD because of that. And it is ridiculous the companies have so much money but don't invest in providing quality. No wonder people distrust the elite when Youtube a major platform rigs the game in favor of them. Furthermore the algorithms are shady and the public should have the right for transparency in this instance.
Maybe I should go to another point. I have the feeling the internet is like an ocean full of information. And it is pretty hard to navigate through. There are many media and human biases which make things difficult. For example the confirmation bias. We like to choose outlets which reinforce our own worldview. I think there are many different standpoints in the media landscape. But I refer to the German media landscape. I think the choice is difficult. I choose a mix. But I have to say I am a media and news junkie. I love to compare the different perspectives. And I read many many outlets. I think maybe it is easier to say which outlets mostly spread fake news. But it is harder to diiferentiate between the differences of truthworthy outlets. The nuances are way way more difficult to spot. And I am trying to find out which emphasis each outlet has.
I think most people will never waste as much time with reading so many outlets. And maybe that is a good thing. I try to read more scientifical articles recently and I stop to read medium quality media articles. Here is what I listen to/read. A German leftwing magazine, a very right-wing newspaper in German language, US independent (leftwing) media, German public broadcasting, sometimes other left or conservative German newspapers, some American journals on foreign policy. And some German journals mostly to look at the media system from a meta perspective. I love to compare the narratives which are present. For example that journalists often behave like sheep when they search for new topics. That issues appear and vanish often in an insane speed and we often don't learn the end of a story. That the choice which topics are talked about is heavily influenced by the factor whether they are attractive for the audience. For example climate change is sometimes not very attractive to talk about. A complicated corruption scandal where one has to dive deep into it to understand the context. I think many in the media system posture themselves as the defender of the average Joe and Jane while they are secretly following the agenda of big companies and lobbies. Moreover when one reads scietifical sources one realizes pretty fast that many discussions in the media only scratch the surface of the issues. Often they just strawman positions. They act like the viewer had to decide between two standpoints while both of them are bullshit and simply want to deceive the listener. In German one would call that an "illusional debate". The purpose is not to educate the people. The reasons instead are infotainment, virtue signaling and to distract from the really important topics which would demand our full attention.
So how do you decide whether a source is trustworthy? I looked into the different outlets myself. But I also listened to experts which sources provide the highest quality. At the same time I try to be aware of media biases and follow independent media as a countermeasure in order to avoid living in a bubble. Moreover I follow outlets where the opinions annoy me or make me angry. For the sake to counter the confirmation bias.
Do you struggle to find a trustworthy sources? One can easily fall into a paranoia and start to question everything. Do you have some advices or rules how to navigate through that ocean of information? It can be overwhelming for sure from time to time.
Last edited:
