However, I think, as another commenter has pointed out, you maybe could serve your argument better by digging deeper into the examples in the pattern of behavior you believe to have exemplified here and ask, “Why?”
While that’s a step in the right direction, there’s still a good chance that you don’t understand things from the outside.
If you want to understand how the news work it’s important to read views from experts that actually have domain knowledge.
There is a lot of commonality between this post and the idea of churnalism, which was coined by a journalist, and appears well substantiated. There may be a difference in emphasis or intent—churnalism isn’t about deliberately manipulating the reader, but PR is, and churnalism enables this.
While that’s a step in the right direction, there’s still a good chance that you don’t understand things from the outside.
If you want to understand how the news work it’s important to read views from experts that actually have domain knowledge.
There is a lot of commonality between this post and the idea of churnalism, which was coined by a journalist, and appears well substantiated. There may be a difference in emphasis or intent—churnalism isn’t about deliberately manipulating the reader, but PR is, and churnalism enables this.
My criticism isn’t mainly about the conclusion but about the epistemics, epistemics being one of the main subjects of LW.