Kite News

>an endless stream of clickbait that destroys our ability to think deeply and clearly.

Disagreed. News never changed. It was always exactly like this. The Pulitzer award was created because journalists lied and caused an assassination and the spanish war.

The thing that changed is social media is letting everyone fact check the journalists and we're catching them in their lies. We are ushering in a new era of professionalism and truth in journalism and it's not going well at all.

Here in Canada we have a funny one happening right now. Another whistleblower from the CBC was forced to involuntarily resign. Now the CBC is saying they refuse his resignation that he's a slave and must continue working for them. So his lawyer has to bring a human rights lawsuit.

>World doesn't live in echo chambers. The reality emerges from the collision of different viewpoints and perspectives - that's how we separate signal from noise.

Or at least it shouldnt be this way.

>This multi-source approach helps reveal the full picture beyond any single viewpoint.

Grabbed the RSS, thanks!

> News never changed. It was always exactly like this.

That's not true. Bias and agenda have always existed, but there was a time when news sources clearly distinguished facts from opinions. In the US the shift arguably happened in 1987 when the fairness doctrine was abolished, and for-profit media companies were given freedom to publish anything they wanted. The 24/7 news cycle was established, and news sources operated under incentives to keep consumers' attention above everything else, including journalistic integrity.

> The thing that changed is social media is letting everyone fact check the journalists and we're catching them in their lies. We are ushering in a new era of professionalism and truth in journalism and it's not going well at all.

That's a bold take, if I ever saw one. You're actually saying that social media is a good thing for journalism?

If anything, social media exacerbated the free-for-all problem of reporting. Suddenly, everyone was a news reporter, with zero moral or integrity obligations. On the contrary: the larger the audience of a social media influencer, the more incentivized they are to infuse their content with bias and agenda. Companies, advertisers, and governments love that influencers can be easily bought. This is far from a "new era of professionalism and truth in journalism". What a skewed perspective you have.

And now with AI tools, the world is even more flooded with (m|d)isinformation than ever before.

There's nothing inherently flawed about traditional news media. It just needs to be strongly regulated to report facts rather than opinions[1]. This regulation is literally impossible on social media. Journalism is not something anyone with a social media account can or should do. I'm not saying that journalism can't exist on social media—it certainly can. But on its own it's not a place where journalism can thrive.

I would go a step further and make journalism a licensed profession, with its own variant of the Hippocratic Oath. Making the line between fact and fiction as clear as possible is essential to living in reality. Otherwise, words can be weaponized and people can be manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that are beneficial to those in power.

[1] To counter the argument "who gets to be the arbitrer of truth?", it's quite easy to determine when a news story is opinionated: it's loaded with adjectives and language that is crafted to elicit an emotional response in the consumer. Journalism, on the other hand, reports events that happened. It succinctly answers who, what, when, where. It doesn't describe why, or tries to put a spin on the facts. Those events can be easily fact checked. In fact, if everyone was doing journalism, every news story would be exactly the same. The differences are the bulk of the bias and agenda.

>That's not true. Bias and agenda have always existed, but there was a time when news sources clearly distinguished facts from opinions. In the US the shift arguably happened in 1987 when the fairness doctrine was abolished, and for-profit media companies were given freedom to publish anything they wanted.

It's plausible that pre-1987 that journalism was better but I very much doubt it. There's tons of Vietnam war era journalism that was terribly bad.

>That's a bold take, if I ever saw one. You're actually saying that social media is a good thing for journalism?

Depends on your point of view. From government point of view it's terrible. If it's journalists being held accountable for their lies and agendas, way worse. These journalists will obviously hold anti-social media positions due to this.

But from the consumer of news point of view it's a fantastic improvement. Today i read an article about a 'prohibited night-vision' in Canada but there's literally no such thing in Canada. All night vision is legal in Canada.

>If anything, social media exacerbated the free-for-all problem of reporting. Suddenly, everyone was a news reporter, with zero moral or integrity obligations.

That's how freedom of the press works correct. If you dont have moral and integrity, good luck getting an audience.

>There's nothing inherently flawed about traditional news media. It just needs to be strongly regulated to report facts rather than opinions[1]. This regulation is literally impossible on social media. Journalism is not something anyone with a social media account can or should do. I'm not saying that journalism can't exist on social media—it certainly can. But on its own it's not a place where journalism can thrive.

The government regulating the news is literally the opposite of freedom of the press.

>I would go a step further and make journalism a licensed profession, with its own variant of the Hippocratic Oath. Making the line between fact and fiction as clear as possible is essential to living in reality. Otherwise, words can be weaponized and people can be manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that are beneficial to those in power.

So the government will revoke freedom of the press and license journalists? Just dont do that in my country, thanks.

>[1] To counter the argument "who gets to be the arbitrer of truth?",

You want the government to license journalists. You want to make the government the arbiter of truth.