Susanne Heart’s article “Editor-controlled or editors in control?” is published on Substack.
In the article, she points out that “An editor-controlled medium is meant to be free, independent, and democratizing. That means the individual should receive enough information to see the full picture and think for themselves, because democracy is the people – not the institutions.”
She then provides solid documentation showing that reality is something quite different. This also applies to Wikipedia, where Oagal’s editor has experienced that control is exercised in part by anonymous editors, and that it takes only a few hours before fact-controllers revert changes.
Read also: How Oagal aims to strengthen democracy
Heart writes about the encyclopedia: “Alternative perspectives are removed. Articles are locked. In particular, topics touching on politics, vaccines, international organizations, or controversial individuals are handled by small groups operating as gatekeepers of the narrative.”
“Editors also have a responsibility to reflect societal development, not censor or steer it. When large segments of the population move away from globalism and back toward a more national orientation, this is not a warning sign. It is a democratic signal. An editor should be able to understand this shift as an expression of a desire for control, security, cultural preservation, and self-determination – not as a precursor to extremism,” writes Heart.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments