one frequently reads about how internet companies and selected news media shapes public opinion. the two things are the same thing as it is the internet companies like google and facebook that decide what websites are valuable news outlets in the first place.
as an example, media24 publishes “news” and is highly valued by google.
this is headline news: “man shot dead on christmas day in apparent freak accident”
now the headline says man dead and apparent freak accident.
yet, simply actually reading the drivel that the non objective “reporter” produces and media24 published and google placed high on their search results:
- There was no freak accident
- a security officer discharged his weapon in public and killed another human being.
- the security officer did not discharge his weapon at the small dogs, to “defend his life” in fact he fired randomly, like oscar pistorius did, and killed another human being.
- it is up to a court to “decide” this case – at most this was a murder and at the very least manslaughter.
- like oscar pistorius, this security guard has to have known that firing his weapon at a residential house could have resulted in killing anyone.
- maybe the security guard felt threatened by the older man shouting at him and killed him on purpose.
- maybe the reporter who wrote this drivel is a racist and applied his personal bias to the “news report” he produced?
- maybe the sky is gonna fall and we are all going to wear little blue caps
- who knows as the reporting, which is highly valued and rewarded by google, is low quality, highly priced kak.
the only salient thing that is known is that this type of reporting is like writing a blog, there was clearly no editor and is low quality drivel.
