The slow death of Twitter is measured in disasters like the Baltimore bridge collapse

https://lemmy.world/post/13655627

The slow death of Twitter is measured in disasters like the Baltimore bridge collapse - Lemmy.World

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

It’s actually crazy how low the percentage of people under like… forty is now that actually gets their news direct from a news site. Seriously, i don’t know a single person from like 20-35 who actually just goes on the NPR or C-SPAN app or whatever.

It kind of sucks. So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now. And I just feel like there’s something bad about being able to see a comment section on Twitter or Reddit or even Lemmy now on every news event. Makes for a lot more group think rather than just reading the news and going “huh”

That’s what places like Lemmy are for though.
Great for seeing a headline and then finding an article yourself. Less great for finding articles. Half of you people here have a penchant for linking super weird news sources.
Sure, but you find out about things hours days or even weeks after they happen.
Lemmy is massively biased though. While that doesn’t mean the articles aren’t factual, you’re still only ever hearing one side of the story. What I find time after time is that majority of people who have strong opinions about current events are completely uncapable of fairly steelmanning the opposing side’s argument.

Agreed.

Lemmy, you are biased. You probably don’t intend to be, but it’s true for now.

Going to sound weird, but I came here because of who I knew the vocal people were. I didn’t understand many of their view points and reasons for being mad/hateful/etc. I am much more enlightened now and learn different perspectives everyday.

It is a giant echo chamber though if you are already very rooted in the spectrum here, and voicing decent usually leads to dog pile.

This is related to attitudes about news, politics, etc.

All outlets are biased. There are no exceptions.
So what are you implying? That it doesn’t matter where you get your news because all sources are biased anyway?
I didn’t imply that at all. You wrote a description of literally every news source in existence.
There’s still a massive difference between news sources like NY times and Breitbart. It matters where you get your news from and even if it’s coming from a biased source you should atleast be aware of the bias. Some sites atleast try to counter their bias while others embrace it. These things matter. It’s not binary.
Difference in quality? Yes. Difference in bias? No. The NYT has an extreme neo liberal US oriented business empire bias that as a refugee of the Iran Iraq war and victim of US foreign policy they supported that I don’t trust. I also don’t trust Breitbart.
I’m not sure why you think that news orgs aren’t also biased. Everything and everyone is biased, even those that genuinely try to not let it show through and be fully impartial.

Even Lemmy does that, though. You’re still influenced by the headline, the community/moderation and the users.

Assuming that everyone clicks through to the article, and doesn’t comment before reading the headline, anyhow.

And at the news organization, you are influenced by the editors and framing by authors.