In our everyday lives we are subjected to an enormous quantity and variety of data via news editorials. We must then interpret this information to develop our greater view of the world and its state.
Casually observing the daily headlines, I have pinpointed a behavior and resulting phenomenon that is most certainly problematic.
Agnostic of subject, an influx of breaking news is being bursted to our mobile phones which come bearing metrics we must then interpret. Theoretically speaking, this should be a straightforward task. What has become problematic is micro-reporting on various metrics and their relative fluctuations, oftentimes referencing nebulous time periods as to create content that provokes consumption where consumption of information should not be applicable.
Reporting that the S&P is down 2% is not where the problem lies. Reporting that the S&P is down most since <insert nebulous time period> only to report tomorrow that the S&P is rallying most since <insert nebulous time period> questions journalistic integrity.
While not blatantly lying, these headlines are deceitful; oftentimes riddled with explosive terminology that modifies relatively normal narratives into something that provokes a reaction, and therefore consumption. This benefits news agencies at the expense of their customers: more explosive content gives way to more consumption, resulting in greater ad revenue.
Examples of this can be the performance of any given company, the unrealized wealth of any given person, and even COVID related metrics.
The result is a population of people unable to determine the current state of affairs in regards to any topic being reported on. How can one possibly develop meaningful insights about any given subject if a barrage of contradicting and confusing reports, via the same source, create the foundation of their knowledge.