The CBC wants everyone to march lockstep with their beliefs, and it shows. The “old country” media outlets do not want people to get information from anywhere else…including old news stories.
This knee-slapper of a propaganda piece is warning the little people that there can be old news stories circulating, and that people aren’t checking the date.
Except that is not exactly true, either.
People look on Snopes, for instance, and think that is somehow enough verification.
But there are other reasons why old news stories come back: to remind people of sins from the past.
The Guardian, for instance, marks its stories as being old ones; so this isn’t an actual thing. Journalists are control freaks, and if they cannot meddle or have their work used as intended, they implode.
But that’s just life. Deal with it.
And their base assumption that the entire planet are helpless and gullible rubes who could not survive without them sounds just like an abusive parent or spouse’s narrative. Nice try.
But what the article doesn’t mention is the little problem of how many outlets have contracts that want a content provider to sign away their moral rights. This problem has been around for a long while now — and this is the intellectual equivalent of a deep fake video; an outlet often has the right to alter the work, which is far more deceptive than someone posting an old article from an outlet’s archives.
And considering that an increasing number of media outlets that even have or allow old articles to be shared without a paywall is shrinking.
So this is not an actual problem. People have the right to post and comment on things any way they wish. When I used to post on Metafilter, every once in a while, someone would accidentally post an older article to discuss, in which people would immediately and gleefully point out. This article is an absolute stretch, and is a pathetic attempt to make people think they are too stupid to find information unless a journalist pierces their nose with a ring, loops a rope through it, and then drags them where they need to be.
And as the article itself is nothing but self-serving misinformation that is one-sided and patronizingly demeaning to its readers, they are not ones to puke and spew…