thischick25:

motorizedduck:

roachpatrol:

the-real-seebs:

The thing where tumblr “signal boost this!” posts say “mainstream media won’t cover this”, and the thing where Trump calls the mainstream media “fake news” are the same thing.

So far, every time I’ve seen someone say “mainstream media won’t cover this” or “lying media won’t admit that” or anything like that, one of two things has turned out to be the case:

1. It’s super easy to find actual coverage of it in mainstream media. (Most natural disaster stories.)
2. The thing they’re supposedly not covering isn’t true. (For instance, Trump’s claim that 2015 was a 47-year peak in violence, when it wasn’t even close.)

The goal here isn’t to correctly report on mainstream media’s failures; it’s to create the impression that the writer is more credible than “the media” and prevent fact-checking.

this kind of thing also tells you that emotionally charged convictions are a fine substitute for evidence-based analysis. this is very, very tempting to believe because it’s easy and feels great. taking the time to examine several different sources of information and draw a measured and nuanced conclusion is hard work and kind of unsatisfying. but, it’s usually worth the effort.  

3. The thing they’re supposedly not covering happened five to fifteen years ago, and it was well-covered back then. 

4. It’s literally just now happened or is still happening, and the news media that *would* cover outside of the immediate area hasn’t gathered enough (credible) information for a story yet.