Of course traditional news has the same problem. “If it bleeds, it leads!”
But newspapers are liable for the content they publish, and that keeps misinformation somewhat in check.
If Twitter and Facebook etc were held to publisher standards they couldn’t exist in any form like they do today. I kind of think that would be a good thing.
I actually don't think the libelous stuff is what is driving most of the polarization, but rather its the rage-generating content like the "war on christmas". And it's not just news sources on the right, this recent NYT article is clearly not national news worthy, except to drive engagement / enragement (just look at the URL they chose): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/stewart-allen-clark-pa...
>In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group.
People say this a lot, and forget that (a) libel is pretty limited in the US and (b) expensive everywhere and (c) despite being much heavier in the UK still does not restrain our awful press from campaigns of harassment against celebrities they deem appropriate targets for malicious gossip.
I hear this sentiment all of the time as well, not just restricted to cases of libel but it seems most common with libel.
It doesn't matter if something is written down as being against the law/regulations/whatever if the punishment for breaking that law/regulation is toothless, seldom applied, or so expensive to get proceedings started that 90% of the population is priced-out of pursuing their case from the start.
"Just sue them if they write something incorrect/defamatory/etc" is not really a realistic option for the majority of people, not a guarantee of anything happening or reforming, and generally the damage has already been caused. No one really cares about a retraction issued a few months after a story is released, we've all moved on to the next outrage-inducing story.
I would say The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD and helping to champion the Iraq war was far more damaging than anything that has happened on social media.
The MSM may steer clear of the obvious falsehoods like vaportrails/5g mind control, but the misinformation they do provide is extra dangerous, especially when it's a joint effort with the government.
> The New York Times falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD
This gets brought up absolutely every single time, and I would love someone to link to the original primary historical sources. Their archive is all on the internet; could some committed person find what they actually said? Did they confirm it themselves, or did they just report what government spokespeople said?
It's more complicated: they repeated lies from the CIA and Bush administration (regarding WMD and the need for an invasion), AND added their own spin on top of this. It's not too different from what they are still doing now.
It's always the same: ignore the part you don't like, amplify facts that will suit your needs, then spin your own narrative on top.
They didn't claim to have personally seen the WMDs, but they acknowledged in a 2004 apology (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...) that they created a systematically false impression about the veracity of the evidence. The apology includes references to specific articles if you're interested to read them in detail, but the general thread is an uncritical presentation of uncorroborated evidence from sources who had obvious incentives to mislead the public.
"During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate."
In short, the Pentagon found a credulous NYT reporter and hooked her up with a succession of fictitious sources, which she ate up and asked for seconds. The NYT repeatedly ran stories on page 1 that were complete fiction, and played a material part in hyping the war under false pretenses (which the paper itself, in its backhanded way, has acknowledged). NYT editors also fought internally AGAINST running any stories that were skeptical of the war or of the administration's statements about Iraq.
Many mass media corporations were doing everything they could to encourage the war in Iraq, including cancelling popular talk show hosts who dared to ask questions:
> Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[23]
Guess the military-industrial complex wins over free speech again.
This slogan refers to sensational violence (car crashes, murders, earthquakes), not content that inflames readers ideologically. Maybe it's tawdry in its own way, but it does not seem nearly so polarizing to me.
But newspapers are liable for the content they publish, and that keeps misinformation somewhat in check.
If Twitter and Facebook etc were held to publisher standards they couldn’t exist in any form like they do today. I kind of think that would be a good thing.