What's hidden? Who'll ask?

Media literacy was one point spoken of on the radio yesterday, a sticking point between two sides and a topic related to current events around my neck of the woods. It's related to a hearing about rabbit holes (my notes on the rebroadcast show my initial reaction was to refer to the testimony as bovine); and in this case, it's related to, for all I don't mind eating the stuff, what could be uncharitably called rabbit food.

Both of these articles speak on the same topic, which (if I'm interpreting them correctly) is agricultural restructuring in combination with rewilding. Both read like they find the combo's a good idea (I'm inclined to agree, but that's beside the point of this post). From the initial images chosen for each article (a video whose title screen shows a basket of food versus an image of a desert) to the language each uses, the difference between portrayals of animal husbandry in agriculture is evident without looking at the URL.

A couple of days, perhaps, have passed since these examples came up, but how many eyes have kept track of this pattern over a longer period of time? I would have thought that people who use such a pattern would welcome the spotlight, but perhaps I was mistaken in the case of those who would move past previous behavior that's made under their own initiative but portrayed as someone else's and still used to forward their ends. This pattern relies on a lack of media literacy, or at least a perceived one; and as long as the pattern remains within articles that want to show conservative views putting their opponents at a social media disadvantage, I'll do my bit by keeping handy the example of flooding a hashtag to drown it that resulted in boosting that hashtag.

Same messy discourse, same motivations disguised. Therefore, if media literacy includes asking questions about what one is shown, I think I'll choose what keeps me questioning in the first place.

Ending with this because it's good news to my curiosity.