Define "Truth"...

In an article entitled "Who cares if it's true? Modern day newsrooms reconsider their values" by Marc Fisher that took a look at the concept of truth in modern day newsrooms like BuzzFeed. There was an assertion made in the article that BuzzFeed is trying to assure that their readers are reading the truth by hiring copy editors to avoid having to fix errors after publication of their most popular posts. This I do not buy, however, not because the change they are trying to make is impossible, but because of the newspaper itself. BuzzFeed is no New York Times - their goal is not to enlighten their leaders. Their goal is to lure their readers in with entertaining rumors and embellished truths, and embellished truths are very far from truth. Sure, they may be hiring new editors to make sure there are no grammatical errors. What these editors are probably not checking is the level of truthfulness per article. When looking at the landing page of the Buzzfeed website, there is perhaps some evidence of these copy editors. There are no noticeable grammatical errors or website flaws. Once again, however, that is probably close to the extent of their duties - looking for conventional mistakes rather than misleading untruths. Also covered in the article was the not-so-fine but more blatant and thick line between the two major generations of American that receive news - the "digital evangelists" and the "print chauvinists". It describes the digital evangelists as those who distance themselves from traditional methods of editing with pride, and the print chauvinists as those who are disgusted with the rumors that modern day journalists tend to spread as a result of little to no editing. This comparison does not completely represent the choice between the two polar opposites, for there is more to look at than just sites like BuzzFeed. There was another assertion made in the article regarding the tendency for newsrooms to release news before any facts have been verified and the corresponding tendency for the public to believe it and consider it news regardless. One experience of mine that speaks to this assertion is when I read in a magazine article that Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel's relationship was coming undone. This was, however, merely a rumor that the magazine published anyway, knowing that few actually question things like that and those who do do not do anything about it. Another experience of mine that speaks to this assertion is when I heard a rumor from CBS news that Gabby Giffords had died. Both The New Yorker and The Huffington Post covered stories on Hollywood and religion - particularly Christianity and atheism - in recent articles, and the subject covered would be the only similarity between the two. The way in which each article was written revealed the differing pace and interests of the newspapers' audiences. For example, The New Yorker probably has an older audience that take it slow in some ways since the article was lengthy with some advanced vocabulary and deep subjects that a younger, faster-paced audience would easily overlook. This younger, faster-paced audience would be more suited to the article in The Huffington Post due to its use of much more photographs than words as well as popular celebrities to catch the attention of younger and faster-moving audiences with interests in more shallow matters than the readers of The New Yorker with deeper interests in U.S. controversies and who only have time to scroll through pictures than to pore over more reflective articles on matters of religious issues in the U.S. It is clear that news has evolved tremendously, and so has the concept of truth in newsrooms. Can differing audiences - consisting of older, more slow-paced and younger, more fast-paced - find common ground?