Welcome back to the second part. I start with my second question.
My second question is, how reliable are other sources of news? While social media is quick, it’s not accurate. The gravity and meaning of a situation depends on the lenses through which it’s seen from. Social media is great at distorting those lenses, the incentive being fame. When you post a favorable perspective rather than the truth, you get more views. Humans are naturally wired to accept like-minded people. It’s confirmation bias in action.
This is why news cannot be free. When news is free, you cannot ensure credibility nor secure 100% of the truth. News companies must be funded by the public. When it stands without support of the government or private companies, it gives freedom to write and publish the truth. This is one of the reasons why websites like The New York Times still charges people: to ensure high quality, veritable writing. One counterargument is how do you make it for everyone? By making news a paid service, it might make news inaccessible to some people. My solution would be to charge the same percentage of income to everyone rather than the same amount. We could also form a non-profit organization that covers the funds of running the news company. Now, I realize this seems impractical and may be a challenge to enforce, but it must be done for the sake of veracity.
Free news is predominantly a web of lies.
RELATED POSTS
View all
