The other day I was perusing Facebook and something stuck out at me. It was a post that read:
"Breaking news - FOX - Roller coaster crash at major theme park. Many casualties are reported. Crash was due to car sliding off of track at second hill. At least 21 deaths were reported on impact. Passengers in first 8 cars all pronounced dead at the scene, all other riders in critical condition. Crash was caught on security camera and has been released, will not air on major news channels due to graphic content. See it here: (followed by a link)."
At first I was all like "OMG that's crazy!" but then I realized that it actually was crazy. Like, bad crazy.
Today's lecture, about social media news compared to mainstream news ties in nicely to what I now believe to have been a spam post that probably would have given my computer some nasty virus if I had clicked on it. First of all, said spammers obviously knew something about social media news. The idea of graphic content being available only through social media news is based on fact -- mainstream media has content laws and has to practice some censorship due to the audience that may be watching. High five, spammers.
In the end, I'm just glad I didn't decide to click the link. High five, me.
On the topic of social media news vs. mainstream news, I agree Jordan when he says that the best way to get news is through a combination of social media and mainstream sources. These days, on Facebook especially, users are inundated with fake news aimed solely at getting you to press that share button. However, because of corporate sponsors, mainstream news is usually either extremely embellished or watered-down to either appease viewers or to bring new viewers in. Jordan is right. High five, Jordan.
No comments:
Post a Comment