People should look to social media as a source for determining political standing as it provides raw ideas and better access to a wide variety of reputable and long-standing news coverage outlets.
This election will go down in history as “the social media election”. Arguing that there is bias on Facebook, Twitter, or Snapchat, is not valid as there is also going to be bias in a NYT or Wall Street Journal article and we can see differences in information even between left wing CNN and the conservative FOX. The Washington Post has even noted that since April, the media’s opinion of both candidates has fallen significantly. In relation to ad hominem, this election has proven that candidates are no longer hiding behind a computer screen to attack each other. We all need to be informed voters and I believe that having access to multiple different news sources and candidates themselves helps provide voters with more resources to help aid in …show more content…
This means that they’re posting links to their articles and discussing ideas with others. A study done by The Washington Post shows that though there may be subtle tonal differences in articles and news outlets, there is not a large enough sentiment to suggest bias. Most media outlets actually scored very close to zero bias.
It’s quite insulting to the American people to assume that we are inherently “lazy” and as a result would not fact check or search out other resources. I’m sure no one is only following FOX news or Hillary Clinton on Twitter. It is up to you to seek out various viewpoints and opinions in order to be a critical reader and an informed voter. There are many positives to social media, positives that outweigh the negatives. Boldly claiming that social media is simply a podium for slander is just not an accurate portrayal of the positivity and communication made possible through these various
This election will go down in history as “the social media election”. Arguing that there is bias on Facebook, Twitter, or Snapchat, is not valid as there is also going to be bias in a NYT or Wall Street Journal article and we can see differences in information even between left wing CNN and the conservative FOX. The Washington Post has even noted that since April, the media’s opinion of both candidates has fallen significantly. In relation to ad hominem, this election has proven that candidates are no longer hiding behind a computer screen to attack each other. We all need to be informed voters and I believe that having access to multiple different news sources and candidates themselves helps provide voters with more resources to help aid in …show more content…
This means that they’re posting links to their articles and discussing ideas with others. A study done by The Washington Post shows that though there may be subtle tonal differences in articles and news outlets, there is not a large enough sentiment to suggest bias. Most media outlets actually scored very close to zero bias.
It’s quite insulting to the American people to assume that we are inherently “lazy” and as a result would not fact check or search out other resources. I’m sure no one is only following FOX news or Hillary Clinton on Twitter. It is up to you to seek out various viewpoints and opinions in order to be a critical reader and an informed voter. There are many positives to social media, positives that outweigh the negatives. Boldly claiming that social media is simply a podium for slander is just not an accurate portrayal of the positivity and communication made possible through these various