The word "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Systems can change. Human brains on a population/genetic level can't. Blaming individual humans when we know statistically what they will do is mathematically equivalent to giving up.
Also, giving someone information that turns out to be false and never following up isn't "media literacy". I can't see how it can possibly be.
> Systems can change. Human brains on a population/genetic level can't.
Realistically we can't fix media literacy education and we can't fix journalism, both are systemically broken. But I would never blame people, everyone is the product of their environment and a victim of the system.
> Also, giving someone information that turns out to be false and never following up isn't "media literacy". I can't see how it can possibly be.
Media literacy in that context would just refer to reliable sourcing, reliable sources post retractions/corrections.
I think it's a lot more reasonable to expect change journalism. Or maybe not journalism per se, but information dissemination/world model updates. News/journalism is just the form we've sort of settled on for that kind of job, but it's fundamentally the wrong thing. It's like asking for a faster horse when we want a car. Or asking for email notifications when we really want is a way to know the current status of something.
> Media literacy in that context would just refer to reliable sourcing, reliable sources post retractions/corrections.
I think the reach of those corrections is as much a problem as if they are published. Posting retractions to a printer that is directly hooked up to a shredder is technically "posting retractions", but practically it's not. Same as most news sources really. The retractions are functionally buried for almost all sources, including the most prestigious source Nature.
There is no particular reason to assume journalism has a future at all, why rely on a journalists biased summary of a press release and biased editorial teams prioritization of what's important. It increasingly discredits itself, with smaller concentrated ownership and blatant biased reporting (see Iraq war, Gaza genocide). Then the centralization makes it vulnerable to external malicious attacks (see Gawker). But there are so many parts that are hard to replace, credible reporting on current events and investigative journalism, that requires resources mostly only present in large organizations like the visual investigations team at the nyt. It's broken but hard to replace, especially making it decentralized.
But anyway, kagi news does nothing.