>To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.
Previously the only way to get news was through these slow, controlled channels. And the people controlling these channels were responsible for the content being delivered, so if a slanderous lie was published they could be held accountable.
But with Facebook I can make up anything I want, frame it as fact, and get it seen by millions of people. Many of whom will believe it if it is convenient for them to believe it. And many of whom will never realise or accept that is a lie. And nothing bad happens to me for sharing these lies, I just make a bit of money from the ads.
This is a phenomenon that can only happen with the awesome communication enabled by the internet. And it's much worse than minor press bias.
There's no need to conclude that a PBS Newshour story about Somali pirates is fake news because "Pirates of the Caribbean" is so much more popular.
I say this as someone heavily dissatisfied with the media I pay for.
Which is sad because really, truth is a simple concept. For some reason, many people don't feel like their beliefs should in any way correspond to reality.
> It is still valuable to understand the mainstream perspective.
I agree that the role of media as social objects (shared things to talk about) is important, but there's a tradeoff here - the more junk you put in your head, the easier it is to hold a conversation with random strangers, but you're still puttting junk in your head. Is socializing really worth it?