It is indeed a hard problem to solve.
I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Who knows if every single ads on their site is not problematic, or if their reporters are not secretly sponsored by problematic sources
I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Who knows if every single ads on their site is not problematic, or if their reporters are not secretly sponsored by problematic sources
Traditional media is more hands-on and face-to-face. There are salespeople involved, and better money trails. This is largely because the salespeople get a cut of the money spent.
Since Facebook decided to cut the salespeople out and automate the ad buying process, there are no gatekeepers. There is no salesperson wondering why an ad buy for a local congressional race is paid for with a check from a Russian bank.
Facebook and others are trying to build makeshift gatekeepers through AI. But AI, while very interesting, is still not up to the task.
When I'm on twitter I see a nice mix of utter crap and useful information. When I read the NYT it's just a carefully curated selection of total crap.
Based on that statement, I have to believe that you don't actually read the New York Times. You read a very small subset of NYT articles, probably online, that appeal to your anger response.
If you actually read the entirety of the New York Times, you'd feel differently. Or at least foolish for making such a sweeping statement.
Even with sales person involved, and better money trail, the problem is not gone.
Also, traditional media have their own political bias. Even if they don't make obvious fake news, carefully selecting the truths to report on can also have major influence on people's opinions.
If its up to me that would be on every news website and tv channel too. Along with a live ticker on how much revenue is being generated through ad sales.