I hope not. I’d be curious who’s telling you to treat them as sainted inviduals.
Here’s my media literacy guide that catalogs all the biases (contributions welcome):
https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README....
Here’s my media literacy guide that catalogs all the biases (contributions welcome):
https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README....
I disagree. IMO it is almost always about maximizing "engagement" to the news source itself through those ways described in that github - getting the viewer to feel emotions/outrage/etc.
What am I, as a private citizen, meant to do to prevent a plane crash, random act of violence, terrorism, or whatever else that is being massively overreported?
> there is quite a bit of coverage of terrorism because much of it is preventable.
In what way do you propose I, as a normal middle-class office worker, prevent terrorism (which is already a vanishingly unlikely cause of death anyway)?
Or even more broadly, how do you propose our government prevents terrorism? Surprisingly, the unprecedented levels of spying and monitoring of our own people doesn't seem to have stopped it yet. Maybe even more spying will enable us to win that pesky war on terror.
We are not dealing with rational actors here. These are people who truly believe they are going to be martyrs and have eternal happiness just for dying in the right way at the right time. You can't negotiate or reason with that. Also you can't prevent every danger. There will always be, eg footpaths that people can drive cars onto, or whatever other ways to kill random people if you are crazy enough.
As a normal citizen, I would much prefer my government spent its resources preventing the overwhelmingly more likely (and preventable) forms of death or injury - but that doesn't sell papers, fund the war machine, or enable massive and ineffective civil rights degradation.