Without any sense whatsoever of his own irony, Imgur user WildYucatanMan wanted to do the world a service and make a handy dandy infographic to "help" people distinguish between the various editorial orientations of popular online sources. Here's his take on the media outlet scene:
If you get lost in the weeds of his content, you might be tempted to note the ostensible effort toward balance and some kind of rationale for placing outlets along spectra according to ideology and journalistic depth. And while arguing with WildYucatanMan's judgment about which outlets are obviously in the wrong place is certainly also fair game, it's missing the ironic point entirely.
This infographic is not the ANTIDOTE for fake news, it's the PRIME EXAMPLE of why fake news is a problem to begin with!
Did you notice that there's no one signing his/her actual name to the grid? An anonymous source is by definition disreputable until vetted, is it not? Even if the anonymous source claims to want to help you navigate the reputability of your sources. If reputation is the key currency of journalism, shouldn't it begin with signing your own name to what you claim is objective truth you stand behind? Isn't that a minimum requirement for the kind of accountability to corroborating OR debunking voices we need in public discourse? No dialog is possible with Mr. Anonymous, and therefore neither is there trust possible in his credibility.
And about sources: did you notice that there were none offered to substantiate any claims to any placement of any of the outlets along any of the purportedly rational axes? Even journalists know better than to make a claim without at least some kind of reference to a judgment beyond their own, and that's giving most journalists too much credit toward their pretenses to objectivity.
Finally, and this one's the kicker, whether or not you're staking your own reputation on your claims to truth, and whether or not you're seeking independent confirmation of your judgment before publishing, there's still the biggest issue underlying the infographic: the real question isn't whether media outlets reputable or not, the real question is WHO DECIDES? If you trust someone else to define for you which outlets are not to be trusted, you've already given up both your objectivity AND your freedom to judge for yourself. It takes exposure to multiple perspectives to form a balanced opinion. It takes personal skill at reading deeply and effectively, both for the main content and for what's between the lines, to learn the truth in its proper context. Strong readers aren't undermined by the existence of alternative narratives, even when there's disagreement on basic facts, because it only strengthens their understanding.
Bottom line: if you need someone (read: a "helpful" condescending elitist) to label your news sources for you, you're the kind of reader that's susceptible to the manipulation of "fake news".
Addendum: after a little digging, I found the source and a reasoning behind the placement in the infographic. It originated from a patent lawyer named Vanessa Otero. She reasons well, and writes even better, but skews left and either seems unaware of her slant, or seems not to mind that such a slant doesn't serve objectivity. With that said, even she admits she's no media watchdog expert and she's done no actual research and therefore her reasoning amounts to summary judgment--based on detailed criteria, but summary and subjective nonetheless.
Here's her post explaining her "methodology": http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/?p=65
If you get lost in the weeds of his content, you might be tempted to note the ostensible effort toward balance and some kind of rationale for placing outlets along spectra according to ideology and journalistic depth. And while arguing with WildYucatanMan's judgment about which outlets are obviously in the wrong place is certainly also fair game, it's missing the ironic point entirely.
This infographic is not the ANTIDOTE for fake news, it's the PRIME EXAMPLE of why fake news is a problem to begin with!
Did you notice that there's no one signing his/her actual name to the grid? An anonymous source is by definition disreputable until vetted, is it not? Even if the anonymous source claims to want to help you navigate the reputability of your sources. If reputation is the key currency of journalism, shouldn't it begin with signing your own name to what you claim is objective truth you stand behind? Isn't that a minimum requirement for the kind of accountability to corroborating OR debunking voices we need in public discourse? No dialog is possible with Mr. Anonymous, and therefore neither is there trust possible in his credibility.
And about sources: did you notice that there were none offered to substantiate any claims to any placement of any of the outlets along any of the purportedly rational axes? Even journalists know better than to make a claim without at least some kind of reference to a judgment beyond their own, and that's giving most journalists too much credit toward their pretenses to objectivity.
Finally, and this one's the kicker, whether or not you're staking your own reputation on your claims to truth, and whether or not you're seeking independent confirmation of your judgment before publishing, there's still the biggest issue underlying the infographic: the real question isn't whether media outlets reputable or not, the real question is WHO DECIDES? If you trust someone else to define for you which outlets are not to be trusted, you've already given up both your objectivity AND your freedom to judge for yourself. It takes exposure to multiple perspectives to form a balanced opinion. It takes personal skill at reading deeply and effectively, both for the main content and for what's between the lines, to learn the truth in its proper context. Strong readers aren't undermined by the existence of alternative narratives, even when there's disagreement on basic facts, because it only strengthens their understanding.
Bottom line: if you need someone (read: a "helpful" condescending elitist) to label your news sources for you, you're the kind of reader that's susceptible to the manipulation of "fake news".
Addendum: after a little digging, I found the source and a reasoning behind the placement in the infographic. It originated from a patent lawyer named Vanessa Otero. She reasons well, and writes even better, but skews left and either seems unaware of her slant, or seems not to mind that such a slant doesn't serve objectivity. With that said, even she admits she's no media watchdog expert and she's done no actual research and therefore her reasoning amounts to summary judgment--based on detailed criteria, but summary and subjective nonetheless.
Here's her post explaining her "methodology": http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/?p=65
Comments