You’ve heard the term. Fake news.
Popularized by Donald Trump and the first few years of his presidency, he uses those two words to describe any journalistic reporting he doesn’t like. Specifically, any reporting that is critical of him. Now I’m no fan of Donald Trump, however I almost agree with him about fake news--but in a different kind of way.
I’ve always been a bit of a news junkie. I have The New York Times delivered to my front door on the weekends and I read it online the rest of the week. I also regularly read The Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post, Politico, The Daily Beast, BBC, and NPR. Do you see a pattern here?
What I don’t read is “sponsored content.” I skip right over them because, well, they are biased and are often trying to sell you something. And sponsored content is designed to be click bait. The news organizations mentioned above need click bait in order to keep you on their websites. The longer you stay on their websites the more they can charge their advertisers.
But have you noticed how sponsored content is affecting the way real news is written? Take headlines, for example. Here are two from today’s The New York Times:
“The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It.”
Wow, secretive AND the end of privacy! How can you resist reading that? Click on it, dude.
“When Trump’s Thugs Turn on Him.”
Thugs? Good one! Who wouldn’t want to read about thugs? Click on it and make your day.
But wait!
Fake news gets even better. So much of what passes for news today is simply nothing more than the opinions of pundits. By definition, pundits are supposed to be experts in a particular field and qualified to offer their opinion.
But it seems like now just about anyone can get in on the act. I enjoy reading some of these pundits. Paul Krugman, for example, only writes about economics. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize winning economist. But so many of them just write about whatever is on their mind when they wake up in the morning. I’m finding that I no longer have the time—or the inclination—to follow all these guys.
There are, of course, a couple of exceptions. Pundits who are funny and don't even pretend to be experts in any particular field. For me, that would mostly be Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd. I read everything they write because they are thought-provoking--and witty,
And they have rocks in their shoes.
Popularized by Donald Trump and the first few years of his presidency, he uses those two words to describe any journalistic reporting he doesn’t like. Specifically, any reporting that is critical of him. Now I’m no fan of Donald Trump, however I almost agree with him about fake news--but in a different kind of way.
I’ve always been a bit of a news junkie. I have The New York Times delivered to my front door on the weekends and I read it online the rest of the week. I also regularly read The Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post, Politico, The Daily Beast, BBC, and NPR. Do you see a pattern here?
What I don’t read is “sponsored content.” I skip right over them because, well, they are biased and are often trying to sell you something. And sponsored content is designed to be click bait. The news organizations mentioned above need click bait in order to keep you on their websites. The longer you stay on their websites the more they can charge their advertisers.
But have you noticed how sponsored content is affecting the way real news is written? Take headlines, for example. Here are two from today’s The New York Times:
“The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It.”
Wow, secretive AND the end of privacy! How can you resist reading that? Click on it, dude.
“When Trump’s Thugs Turn on Him.”
Thugs? Good one! Who wouldn’t want to read about thugs? Click on it and make your day.
But wait!
Fake news gets even better. So much of what passes for news today is simply nothing more than the opinions of pundits. By definition, pundits are supposed to be experts in a particular field and qualified to offer their opinion.
But it seems like now just about anyone can get in on the act. I enjoy reading some of these pundits. Paul Krugman, for example, only writes about economics. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize winning economist. But so many of them just write about whatever is on their mind when they wake up in the morning. I’m finding that I no longer have the time—or the inclination—to follow all these guys.
There are, of course, a couple of exceptions. Pundits who are funny and don't even pretend to be experts in any particular field. For me, that would mostly be Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd. I read everything they write because they are thought-provoking--and witty,
And they have rocks in their shoes.
RSS Feed