It’s being spoken about everywhere. From the outgoing President of the United States to Influencers like Martina Chapman to people in various agencies, everyone is wary of the kind of news that is being delivered to us.
It’s not about good or bad really. The threat is, we are getting skewed news and even Barack Obama, who relied on social media during his two campaigns, recognized that news being delivered in bubbles through social and digital media can pose a threat to democracy.
You know what’s scary about all this? I don’t think anyone has a tangible solution to this problem as of yet.
While some people recommend that news consumers read every side of the story, the risk is that all the different angles are still very opinionated and it is difficult to dissect fact from opinion.
That brings us to the second dilemma. Which kind of news is better suited in today’s time?
I love reading opinion pieces because that gives me a perspective on the writer but I also value factual information because that’s bias-free. So basically, I don’t want either news type to stop existing but I also know that the co-existence of opinion, fact and misconstrued news creates a whirlpool of confusion.
As a communication professional, these dilemmas present very grave problems. Patisanship, prejudice, limited world view, lack of empathy and the list of threats can go on and on.
Honestly, in this blog post, I would really love to hear a few solutions from you guys as to how we can counter these threats.
Should news agencies take responsibility and not lean to one wing only? Or can we as consumers stop sharing news without authenticating it? Or is there a requirement for a mechanism that trains us on media consumption?
It’s a very important question really and one that needs immidiate attention. More so for people like me in the communication space!