A question that comes up is who the public should be following? The answer is no one

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

Do your research?

I have said that so much in the last few years that in many ways it has become my mantra. In a world where views and advertising dollars matter, catching attention is important. However, that’s not always the best option if the content doesn’t warrant sensationalism.

“What bleeds leads.” Ask CP24, City TV, and some of the other popular mainstream media outlets. Sensational, or dramatic stories, especially those involving violence, conflict, or controversy, tend to attract more attention and generate higher ratings or readership. In other words, stories that are emotionally charged, or shocking are more likely to be prioritized by the media because they capture the public’s interest, and they also make for great distractions from what is happening behind the scenes.

The saying highlights a perceived preference in the media for stories that are sensational or provocative, sometimes at the expense of more substantive or positive news. The concept is often associated with the idea that media outlets may prioritize stories that evoke strong emotions, such as fear or outrage, because they are more likely to grab the audience’s attention and generate higher viewership or readership numbers.

“What bleeds leads,” reflects a criticism of certain media practices, as it suggests that the media may prioritize sensationalism over responsible and balanced reporting. However, not all media outlets follow this approach, and there are many journalists and news organizations that strive to provide accurate and informative reporting without relying solely on sensationalism.

No one needs to point out how badly “ask the experts” has gone lately. Nonetheless, it can be a starting point for getting information on a topic. While many people have become proficient at spotting government deception and propaganda, they either overlook, or ignore it in the alternative media spheres. That is very dangerous.

As a media consumer, any lack of curiosity should be viewed as a red flag. If a piece touches on really important issues, but only at a surface level — with no follow up — one should ask why? Why don’t you want to go down the rabbit hole? Rabbit holes are a fun, understandably exhausting way to shake strongly held views, although a consequence is a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Writing to you as a journalist, I want to reiterate that all media should be scrutinized, regardless of whether it has the slant and leanings that are preferred.

A question that comes up is who the public should be following. The answer is no one. Ideally, the best populace is one that’s full of inquisitive and resourceful people. Yes, research is time consuming, but there’s no shortcut to becoming educated. The alternative is to sit back and hopefully trust the right outlet, and I would not recommend that. As a proactive media consumer, when you are eagerly devouring your daily dose of content you should be asking:

• Is the title “clickbait”, or does it accurately represent the content?
• Is it satire? If the claims made are overly dramatic, the author may be trying to create humourous work.
• Who wrote it, and why? Are there any obvious conflicts of interest?
• Who can a person check with to verify the information?
• Will biases be an issue in judging it objectively?
• Is the information current or outdated?

A little discernment can go a long way.