Over the past few years, Donald Trump has attacked liberal media, dubbing news outlets such as CNN and the NY Times as "Fake News," as they spin news more in liberal favor. However, they do not blatantly make up and spread lies, unlike Christopher Blair, the 48 year old founder and main contributor of a Facebook based political satire website. Blair and some other liberal bloggers fabricate ridiculous stories such as "California instituting sharia" and "former president Bill Clinton becoming a serial killer." The posts contain no evidence, but that does not stop people from believing them.
Compared to CNN and the NY Times, Blair's blogs are actually fake news. Trump's list of fake news outlets includes some other networks, such as MSNBC. But another media source that may have made the list of actual fake news media is an unlikely candidate: Netflix.  |
| Hernandez, right, and SanSoucie, left |
Blair's motive for starting his blog was to "make fun of what they considered to be extremist ideas spreading throughout the far right," and he succeeded big time. He and his blogger friends constantly produce nonsense stories that go viral, as people take them for fact. But what is Netflix's motivation? Primarily, money. Similar to Blair, they are not journalists and fact hunters. Their goal is to make money, and the most money will be made when the most entertaining documentary is produced. Both Blair's blog and Netflix are forms of media entertainment, but are very different. Blair is purposely fabricating stories while Netflix is doing their best to get the facts out. But when the facts are only based on speculation, rumors, and one man's word over another, can they be called facts? As different as they are, Blair's blog and Netflix's documentary could both be found under under "fake" tab on websites.
Hi, overall your blog post is engaging. There are some minor issues with font consistency, and redundant image use, but that is easily fixed. When comparing Netflix to Blair's fictitious content, I see a slight disconnect. You go into detail about how Blair uses solely fictitious content. However, Netflix does have a source. There are ethical concerns here, which you outline well, but I found myself thinking you were comparing this content to complete fiction, which it is not.
ReplyDeleteHi schwadyl,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, but I agree with the comment above. I like how you tried to compare and contrast Netflix to Blair, most other blog posts try to use an example that directly correlates to the reading. That being said, there's a slight disconnect and I'm not sure this blog post has a "theme". I see the comparing and contrasting, but I'm not sure what the big take away is. As a reader, I couldn't see the big picture.
However, I like how you asked the ethical question at the end of the second to last paragraph. I think it is a good question because I even took a moment to stop and really think about it. It's interesting because I feel like information about celebrities who have passed is revealed all the time, not just from Netflix.
Overall, I found your post to be intriguing and made me want to keep reading. With that said, I found your post to be somewhat disorganized and lacking a central theme. You begin by discussing Trump and "Fake News", before transitioning to Blair and his Facebook antics, before finally settling on the main topic, which is Netflix and their controversial depiction of Aaron Hernandez. I feel as though a more focused approach would suit this topic better. In addition, you state that Netflix could be thought of as a fake news source because of the Aaron Hernandez documentary, but you never state how Netflix lied in the documentary. Instead, you only say that Netflix released controversial information about Hernandez after his death, which could be considered unethical, but doesn't really show that Netflix is a source of "Fake News" in any way. Overall, good job!
ReplyDelete