web bias

Based on all the resources available to check facts on the internet and validate the authenticity of authorship on the internet, it is interesting to wonder what spawned this digital detective work. It is quite clear that humans are a very cognitively advanced species, a species that contains an interesting trait to seek the truth. Perhaps with the seemingly open authorship of the internet, these resources have been created to keep this free arena of information in check. In fact, this detective work of validity and truth is now so advanced that we are able to mock and satirize it. The image below demonstrates this. From The Huffington Post article about the "Funniest Protect Signs of '09," we can poke fun of a major news contender, Fox News, on the internet to send a message.

On the flip side of this entire discussion on web biases exists an amazingly humour-filled website that takes all arguments set forth by Alan November and Johns Hopkins University and throws them out the window. That site is of course The Onion. To apply some of November's analysis of the website, the first observation is The Onion's subheading "American's Finest News Source." A website that makes fun of news and creates false headlines as the "finest news source?" It takes a smart society to begin to make fun of itself. In this instance, I believe The Onion is the best example and most important take away message from this section on web biases. Here is a website that can be accessed by any computer with an internet connection that has the potential of propagating (mostly) false information to an uninformed reader. Below is an image taken from the home page of The Onion on September 22, 2009 with two main headlines. The first reading: "Nadir of Western Civilization to be Reached this Friday at 3:32pm." Next to it, the (mostly) false headline that Bush laughs at his near decade presidency.

Clearly The Onion is a site created for humour purposes but to an audience not expecting a humour site, the results of taking this information to heart could cause massive misinformation problems. With all of these resources available to check and recheck facts and the source of the information, it is obviously the reader's responsibility to be the gatekeeper of the information, yet mistakes continue to happen and misinformation still exists. How is this problem to be resolved? Infinite fact and source checks? Or merely continue to poke fun at those who are still prey to web biases?