The appearance of numerous pieces declaring that, while there's still a way to go, FB has made great strides in handling misinformation, right after a perceived Democratic election victory, is really some impeccable timing.
We're talking about different sets of people though. Sure, BuzzFeed was a clickbait operation years go (although interestingly they've raised themselves out of the muck and become respectable journalism). You don't think this a contagion that's spread upwards?
-
-
I agree it's contagious (see link below; a pdf of the relevant chapter in my book). But reporters who are susceptible to its effects generally hit an upper bound in their career. You learn what it looks and feels like; the NYT does okay filtering for it.https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhqjgjaeg53dqii/The%20Burned-Out%20Blogger%27s%20Guide%20to%20PR%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Newsroom.pdf?dl=0 …
-
The outlets that have insulated themselves, and can still field extensive reporter armies along with fact-checking editors (like the one that occasionally employs me), do so because they have (for now) the deep pockets to underwrite it all.
-
Strong brands like the NYT and the Economist will probably survive, but as an increasingly niche elite service that controls less and less of the conversation (again, that ruthless Crowdtangle leaderboard). I suppose it comes down to an elite vs. populist thing, like the rest.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

