• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ahhh, post modern “there is no truth”.

      Just because CNN has flaws doesn’t mean it’s not a better source of information than “louder with crowder”.

      Organizations that have standards and make reasonable attempts to be accurate should be promoted over “Dave’s rage blog”.

      • vettnerk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as I despise CNN and NYtimes, I have to agree that they’re miles better than many of their peers, and while flawed they’re usually factually on point. I just wish they weren’t as easily swayed by owners and institutions who have vested interest in which stories are run, and which aren’t.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People have to realize there is not such thing as perfect. And agreeing with you is not “better”. The echo-chamber is a bad thing, not a good thing.

          Sources of information that have an intention of integrity and who strive to follow it are better sources than rampant unbridled partisanship and yellow-journalism. Even FoxNews (the news side not the trash side) is a better source than some liberal blog that makes no attempt to be objective at all.

    • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s probably better in the long run. Extremism is linked with violence (more from the right than the left, but) and YouTube is a global platform. It’s likely they will be trying to push more moderate content that gets the facts right over sensational opinion.

        • kent_eh
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ultimately, the timidity of the advertisers is going to drive youtube towards less controversial and less polarizing content.

          Witness the previous “adpocalypses” and the content policy responses.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’d probably filter out any too harsh content too, so that we can live in our little cotton insulated world’s…

        I mean they’ll decide what is “bad”, and that’s probably bad in itself.

        • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re relying solely on a platform like YouTube for your information, you’re not getting the full picture anyway.