I guess it depends what one calls “the media”. Something like IEEE Spectrum is top notch for tech news. Reuters and AP generally are pretty good for normal news. Past that, maybe something like The Conversation?
I wasn’t really referring to nuances as those are pretty difficult to expect to get right. As long as the general idea is correctly portrayed then it’s reasonably good journalism.
Im talking mostly about clickbait/ragebait BS. Sometimes critical information is intentionally omitted or inaccurately portrayed just to get more clicks on the article. Often times the article itself even contradicts the headline.
One example was an article making rounds in the UK months ago where some flooding had totaled some electrical components in a car. All the headlines said “Electric vehicle receives thousands in damages from a few inches of water” or some variation of it on a few dozen news sites. Each one had long comment chains about how electric cars are going to kill us all and are completely useless to everyone. The car in question was actually an early-2010s diesel.
Or “Self-Driving Tesla slams in to firetruck”. When the Tesla involved in the incident was a 2014 Model S. Which wasn’t equipped with self-driving tech.
Or the recent mozilla foundation article where they say that cars are “Monitoring facial expressions” when what it actually means is that the car is using infrared cameras to make sure the driver’s eyes are on the road.
Honestly, I’d be more curious what topics where the media does nail the nuances of. Are there any at all?
I guess it depends what one calls “the media”. Something like IEEE Spectrum is top notch for tech news. Reuters and AP generally are pretty good for normal news. Past that, maybe something like The Conversation?
I wasn’t really referring to nuances as those are pretty difficult to expect to get right. As long as the general idea is correctly portrayed then it’s reasonably good journalism.
Im talking mostly about clickbait/ragebait BS. Sometimes critical information is intentionally omitted or inaccurately portrayed just to get more clicks on the article. Often times the article itself even contradicts the headline.
One example was an article making rounds in the UK months ago where some flooding had totaled some electrical components in a car. All the headlines said “Electric vehicle receives thousands in damages from a few inches of water” or some variation of it on a few dozen news sites. Each one had long comment chains about how electric cars are going to kill us all and are completely useless to everyone. The car in question was actually an early-2010s diesel.
Or “Self-Driving Tesla slams in to firetruck”. When the Tesla involved in the incident was a 2014 Model S. Which wasn’t equipped with self-driving tech.
Or the recent mozilla foundation article where they say that cars are “Monitoring facial expressions” when what it actually means is that the car is using infrared cameras to make sure the driver’s eyes are on the road.
You’re missing out, this could’ve been a whole other post