At which point can we trust what media tell us?

[Nebi]

I can't seem to be able to trust the medias nowadays, just too more bullshit.

I'll give you this example..

Someone hacked UPI twitter account and sent a fake tweet from the pope that world war 3 started.

So this happens and it's no ones fault. But then the NY Post read this and think it's real and sent false information/news via twitter.

Sorry about this pic, I'm bad @ Photoshop..


So my question is, how can we trust the media when they do things like this?

 

[SolidIce]

Never. I always take what they say and analyze it with the knowledge that western media functions solely for ratings (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, local, etc). I trust BBC the most but even they depend on ratings and government funding to some extent.

Nonwestern media on the other hand is often used as a tool of the state in question (Al Jazeera, IRNA, RT, etc), and thus is equally biased/has its own agenda.

This is regardless of the hack which is irrelevant.

 

[IDL]

It's for both ratings and crowd control / perception management / propaganda.

It all must be taken with copious amounts of salt.

 

[SolidIce]

It's for both ratings and crowd control / perception management / propaganda.

It all must be taken with copious amounts of salt.

^ this.

Does anyone think someone like Murdoch gives a shit about truth/accuracy? Lol

 

[dannialn]

I don't think you should trust the media 100%.
But that said, I think the media bashing is a ridiculous trend now on the web, especially in the West.
Coming from East Ukraine originally, watching the Russian national news channels I can really see the brainwashing and bullshitting done there, now that's propaganda.
You should come to terms with the fact that you will never know 100% of the truth, but you should appreciate that you live probably in the most informationally free period in the history. Things like VICE, tweeter and LiveLeak are just some examples of that.

 

[Bay Area]

This sums it up:

[Yt]MTN3s2iVKKI[/YT]

 

[BearGrounds]

I don't think you should trust the media 100%.
But that said, I think the media bashing is a ridiculous trend now on the web, especially in the West.
Coming from East Ukraine originally, watching the Russian national news channels I can really see the brainwashing and bullshitting done there, now that's propaganda.
You should come to terms with the fact that you will never know 100% of the truth, but you should appreciate that you live probably in the most informationally free period in the history. Things like VICE, tweeter and LiveLeak are just some examples of that.

If you can see it, it ain't good work.

 

[Count Zero]

"Believe in none of what you hear and half of what you see"

 

[Like A Bas]

This isn't the context for discussing whether we should trust the media. These are pranks. And for the love of god, if you see something on fucking twitter or facebook that sounds alarming, take just 2 of Jesus' minutes of your day to confirm something before spamming it along to your "friends."

 

[IDL]

If you can see it, it ain't good work.

Exactly. Propaganda works best when it isn't recognized as such. When the guard is down it just slips right past peoples senses.

This is why Western propaganda is superior.

 

[panamaican]

Trust the media? Nope, can't do it. Gather as much information from as many sources as possible and reach your own conclusions.

And Twitter isn't media to me.

 

[badascan]

"The network (Fox News), at its core, is a giant soundstage created to mimic the look and feel of a news operation, cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism." from the article...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ilt-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525?page=2

Here's a video or Howard Stern talking about the article and Roger Ailes if you don't want to read it...

 

[IDL]

I'm always curious as to why people point at Fox like the other ones aren't propaganda.

Each offer different compartments and all protect the interests of the establishment while delivering propaganda to their target audiences.

BBC is the same thing. It just seems so 'nice'

The compartmentalization of the population in terms of what messages they receive is an important part of the control system. It gives people different safe opinions in which to argue with each other and it keeps them out of trouble.

 

[badascan]

I'm always curious as to why people point at Fox like the other ones aren't propaganda.

Each offer different compartments and all protect the interests of the establishment while delivering propaganda to their target audiences.

BBC is the same thing. It just seems so 'nice'

The compartmentalization of the population in terms of what messages they receive is an important part of the control system. It gives people different safe opinions in which to argue with each other and it keeps them out of trouble.

It may seem like my post was aimed at Fox but make no mistake, they are all heads of the same hydra. Roger Ailes was the president of CNBC, and...

"After the announcement of Microsoft and NBC's partnership to create an online and cable news outlet, MSNBC, taking the place of America's Talking (a channel Ailes wanted to create), Ailes left the network in February 1996 and was hired by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News Channel for News Corporation. In addition, eighty-nine additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the new channel's creation for launch, on October 7, 1996.

To the point, no "media" can be trusted... There may have been a time when truth was important and "journalism" had integrity, but that time is gone. One must vet every source and understand both context and perspective before believing any "news".

 

[IDL]

It may seem like my post was aimed at Fox but make no mistake, they are all heads of the same hydra. Roger Ailes was the president of CNBC, and...

"After the announcement of Microsoft and NBC's partnership to create an online and cable news outlet, MSNBC, taking the place of America's Talking (a channel Ailes wanted to create), Ailes left the network in February 1996 and was hired by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News Channel for News Corporation. In addition, eighty-nine additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the new channel's creation for launch, on October 7, 1996.

To the point, no "media" can be trusted... There may have been a time when truth was important and "journalism" had integrity, but that time is gone. One must vet every source and understand both context and perspective before believing and "news".

I wasn't specifically referring to your post but it reminded me of the pattern I often see. I certainly agree that they are all part of the same beast.

Having 'choices' and it being privatized paints the illusion that it isn't, and that is why it's so effective.

 

[CaSe]

Things like VICE, tweeter and LiveLeak are just some examples of that.

Tweeter and the Monkey Man. LiveLeak used to be good but now the daily 'featured' vids are mostly fights and animals.
Documenting Reality is OK, a lot of gore but a lot of good info too if you don't mind looking around the site a little.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm always curious as to why people point at Fox like the other ones aren't propaganda.

Each offer different compartments and all protect the interests of the establishment while delivering propaganda to their target audiences.

BBC is the same thing. It just seems so 'nice'

The compartmentalization of the population in terms of what messages they receive is an important part of the control system. It gives people different safe opinions in which to argue with each other and it keeps them out of trouble.

Shocker that IDL is defending Fox as not being unusually bad.

Anyway, to answer the question: Whenever we hear information that contradicts what we already think we know, it's a lie, and if it's what we want to hear, it's the truth (managed to slip past the censors). Right, IDL? Everyone?

 

[Like A Bas]

Another good practice that is super easy on the internet, is that when you see an inflammatory headline or editorial/blog, look around for the original story. Here's an example of the NY Times linking to AP stories. When reading trash media and even social media, you'll often find distortions of more legitimate write-ups like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/

Sticking with better sources, and even going beyond just what the NY Times sees "fit to print" (heh), you'll get better at spotting bullshit, chain-mail, etc. and better at spotting things that are simply more trustworthy.

 

[dannialn]

If you can see it, it ain't good work.

I can see it because I don't live there anymore and because I have access to various other sources on the web. The vast majority of people in Russia, don't (due to financial or technical difficulties, not censorship) and get their info from the 3 biggest channels.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Trust no one.