I Googled NPR DNC PIpe Bomb - I see no sign of curiosity about why, 4 years later, we know nothing about this attempted assassination of our VP-Elect. How did I do?
I hear you. BTW, there is a “gift articles” feed here on Bluesky that you can check out for completely above-board free links to things that you might actually want to read.
Another version of this, I think, is when people ask a rhetorical question as a "gotcha," as if nobody knows the answer. (Think: everything joke Seinfeld has ever told.) But--there are real actual answers, if only we'd keep searching. ...I try hard to catch myself when I do this
My favorite one with Seinfeld was when he had the joke about detergent commercials that say they get blood out of clothes. “Who are these people who have BLOOD on their CLOTHES?”
Bah, that's so obnoxious lol. ...What I hate is that it's really easy to do this ourselves. I'm not sure I always catch myself--I'm sure I must still be doing it sometimes without realizing it. It's so satisfying to ask a smug rhetorical question this way! But imho it indicates a massive blind spot
Often stories that should get headline status on CNN and major television prime time, don't. A brief line, or two on Google is not sufficient coverage for very important stories.
Yes, but calling out editorial choices can be appropriate. Like...the lack of any climate frame on some corporate media coverage of the LA fires. 20 years ago, when I worked on a show distributed by NPR, we were encouraged to "balance" comments by climate scientists with industry sources. Really.
I always ask people "how do you know about this thing across the country that didn't happen to anyone you know, if not for the news covering it," and they do a little ballroom routine, with the goalposts as the world's stiffest partner.
Better yet: find and amplify the media which captures your best interests. Most could use positive shares over relentless targeting by those who know the truth is absolutely corrosive to a con job.
This feels like a side effect of algorithms. People don't tend to "engage" with news the way social media algorithms prefer, so they deprioritize it as something you aren't "interested" in.
Candidly, if you’re going to claim something isn’t being covered, you can look to see if that’s true before you say it. That’s not an algorithm problem. The world doesn’t consist of what algorithms are showing you, and people are grown up enough to know that.
Oh, I totally agree. Even if we rely on algos, the process should be "see something in passing, google it." A lot of people don't do the second step. I don't condone it and it's not solely the algos, but those certainly pray on people's worst habits.
Admittedly, I'm probably a bit more understanding about it since I'm in Canada and my boomer parents still use Facebook, where news is still banned and they constantly have no idea what's actually going on. I'm desensitized by this point.
Absolutely and also when you do so, make sure to scroll past the first few articles, as you may find that Google suppresses articles especially negative news about its own company.
Yes! It's not covered does not mean you haven't seen or read it yet. This feels like one of those media literacy issues. Or just basic critical thinking
Comments
Would be even more important to post this information on the other platform 😉
BTW, I really like Pop Culture Happy Hour!
Well. Sir. Let me explain a thing to you.
Honestly, maybe they never did. Tabloids are not news.
But also sad you have to type this.
But also… America.
Use RSS readers or more trustworthy search engines.
https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiatives/an-update-on-canadas-bill-c-18-and-our-search-and-news-products/