This actually frightens me. When professional news sources (read: MSM) are considered less factual than social media, we have a big problem.
Some caveats: I understand that when I use the acronym MSM, I'm using a rather wide brush - this includes obviously biased news houses, both left and right. I also understand that MSM in general are struggling to survive in the current environment, and do not, on occasion (YMMV), fully corroborate their stories in the rush to publish.
However, the resources are at their disposal, and as often as not they are called out by others. Whether they acknowledge this is another matter, of course.
Sure, social media is powerful, in that it is instant and has a huge reach, but I would not for one second consider it more credible than some organisation like Reuters, as an example.
To me, social media is news by mob rule, with the associated results. As the son of an esteemed journalist, who had old school solid reporting ethics, it just sucks, and undermines the ethics of all proper journalists.
Last edited:
