Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.

Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.

  • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
    11·
    9 months ago

    I think the bigger issue is how bad news sites have gotten. I’m sure part of the reason for that is people getting news online from alternative sources, but mainstream sources are significantly worse than they once were which just pushes things further in that direction.

    That said, I don’t know which caused more group-think. Was it having a few mainstream sources and that’s it or having many worse quality but more diverse sources? People relate to the new version more probably, which encourages them to follow along and not think for themselves, but I don’t know if that’s better or worse than not really having any dissenting opinion available at all.

    • Jourei@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, bad news sites is the reason I didn’t follow any news for years, I got burnt out verifying just about every article. Most bended the story one way or another, headlines usually not quite what the article read…

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      Having everyone see the same news didn’t mean there was no dissent and no discussion.

      The facts shouldn’t really be all that controversial. A quote from a political leader is a fact. Everyone sees this quote. People have different opinions about what the politician said, feel different ways about it, talk about whether they actually trust that politician.

      Now with more “diverse sources” those source often decide to report or not report on something depending on whether it fits a narrative they are promoting. The alternative sources decide what people’s opinions should be then determine which facts should be reported that align with those opinions.

      The existence of these alternative sources allows people to choose sources that align to their feelings and never be challenged by inconvenient facts. A mainstream source that reports the facts regardless of whose politics it helps or hurts is seen to be biased relative to one’s chosen source that always conforms to how they feel.

      There is more groupthink now because people are never challenged with inconvenient facts. Sure there’s multiple groups (that hate each other) but people within these groups have less real discussion and conform to the group more because they never get information that challenges how they think.

      Most facts aren’t really controversial. Ship loses power and hits a bridge. Bridge collapses. Poltiician says X in response. These are things that happened. Why would there be a variety on how this story is reported? It’s only if there’s a need to push an agenda that there would be diverse sources for this story. And most news stories are actually like this.