Hear, hear. My favourite part: "Attempts like this one, to fake a consensus until you make a consensus, are one of the reasons why people no longer trust journalism and journalists. There is a particular brand of ugly political writing in Canadian media that pretends there is a national consensus on an issue when there is not. In these pieces, the world is simple, everything has already been decided, and journalists frame as facts things that are not only mere opinions but are actually opinions held by a kind of fringe minority themselves of academics and journalists." We all need to keep calling out this tactic clearly, methodically, and in the level-headed manner exemplified by this excellent piece.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world of milliseconds attention spans, and most readers only scan through headlines. A conclusion is reached at that time, and "journalists" often will just fill their piece with enough words to get paid, knowing that almost no one will take the time to read the piece, especially if fits in their own confirmation bias.
Social media is hell for this behavior. Even such a terrible site as Twitter took steps not so long ago to detect when people shared articles without even opening the underlying link and ask people if they really want to share it without reading it.
So unsurprisingly for the article you cover, most people will have scanned it at best, and just nodded in agreement.
Hear, hear. My favourite part: "Attempts like this one, to fake a consensus until you make a consensus, are one of the reasons why people no longer trust journalism and journalists. There is a particular brand of ugly political writing in Canadian media that pretends there is a national consensus on an issue when there is not. In these pieces, the world is simple, everything has already been decided, and journalists frame as facts things that are not only mere opinions but are actually opinions held by a kind of fringe minority themselves of academics and journalists." We all need to keep calling out this tactic clearly, methodically, and in the level-headed manner exemplified by this excellent piece.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world of milliseconds attention spans, and most readers only scan through headlines. A conclusion is reached at that time, and "journalists" often will just fill their piece with enough words to get paid, knowing that almost no one will take the time to read the piece, especially if fits in their own confirmation bias.
Social media is hell for this behavior. Even such a terrible site as Twitter took steps not so long ago to detect when people shared articles without even opening the underlying link and ask people if they really want to share it without reading it.
So unsurprisingly for the article you cover, most people will have scanned it at best, and just nodded in agreement.