Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Duende555 t1_jaw4wnx wrote

Unfortunately, this trend closely tracks the decline of print media and journalism in general. As subscriptions decline, more and more companies are looking towards easy click-bait tactics and misleading images or headlines to generate engagement. This has been apparent for a number of years with low-quality click-bait websites, but is now increasingly seen at the level of "quality" newspapers and news sources like the New York Times.

People want easy answers to simplify a complicated world and misinfo usually targets that.

40

ghostfaceschiller t1_jax0gd8 wrote

Genuinely amazing to me that ppl can look at the content and conclusions of this study and come back with “yep just like the New York Times”

17

yosakis t1_jb13gcw wrote

Well it is what it is people want to relate to think even when they have not read any print media for some time.

They will still say things like this it is that's something that is never going to change.

6

Duende555 t1_jax1dpj wrote

Don't know what to say my guy. The decline in print media has closely followed the rise in disinfo and Foxification of news. All competing for the same clicks and same attention economy.

3

Pure4x4 t1_jazpbfd wrote

People cannot get their heads out of their phones so I don't think anyone is going to read the print media anymore.

And also I don't think that the print media is any good they were feeding propaganda in the past and they continue to do so.

3

doctorclark t1_jaymm7u wrote

The OP specifically calls out the differences in information quality across party lines. If the decline in print media alone explained misinformation's rise because of the attention economy, as you state, then what explains the party-line bias for amount of misinformation?

2

LandmassWave t1_jayy9xm wrote

Selection bias and evaluation bias.

Don't forget that the lab leak theory and Hunter's laptop were both "misinformation" and the golden shower dossier was real.

5

Duende555 t1_jayrndl wrote

Okay I'm tired today and don't really want to fight about this.

My point wasn't that the decline in print media alone explain misinformation's rise - my point was that the rise in misinformation and a diminished attention economy secondary to the internet *partially* explains the decline in print media AND has, in turn, led to print media mimicking the click bait tactics and misleading headline style that captures attention. Basically, print media is declining and increasingly trying to ape the style of Fox in an attempt to slow their own decline. And that's bad.

Also I'm tired today so that's probably all I got right now.

4

doctorclark t1_jaysl0u wrote

That explanation cleared up my misreading of your proposed causality. I agree about print media's unfortunate mimicry of clickbait tacticrs that were born online.

5

Duende555 t1_jayt04s wrote

Ah good. And yeah it’s a concerning trend.

2

JPBEH33R t1_jaz8cfz wrote

And with the advent of apps like Tik Tok the attention is man of people is going to sink even more now.

People really find hard to read any kind of newspapers for anything these days.

10

mindfu t1_jaz3nyy wrote

And along similar lines, the end of the fairness doctrine under the Reagan administration helped set this up.

3

[deleted] t1_jb21nbp wrote

[deleted]

1

mindfu t1_jb27x4u wrote

> The fairness doctrine only applied to media broadcast over public airwaves and worked to limit political discussion of controversial topics.

Sure, and also have that discourse be less inflammatory when discussed. The net bonus was a much less overheated political climate than what we have now, and also with much less misinformation.

Of course, to be effective nowadays a fairness doctrine would have to apply to non-airwaves broadcasting like cable and social media. That would be very complicated. But some way of limiting misinformation in particular is deeply needed.

>President's including Kennedy and Nixon used the fairness doctrine to try and silence dissenting opinions.

How was JFK using the fairness doctrine to silence dissent? Curious for more info.

1