At which point can we trust what media tell us?

[badascan]

Look it up. It's among the easiest pieces of information to find on the internet. But here's a hint: it's a nonprofit. And they are possibly going broke at that. Reuters works differently, and is just as easy to look up.

It's annoying when conspiracy theorists put forth a viewpoint that is torn up by the smallest effort to inform themselves.

Your assumptions reveal your ignorance. I know how the AP is presented to work. Don't allow hubris to prevent seeing the "forest through the trees". Labeling someone a "conspiracy theorist" again reveals more about you than the person you judge, and in the future when you tear someones viewpoint up with "the smallest effort" perhaps with a little more effort you can greater inform yourself.

 

[Like A Bas]

Your assumptions reveal your ignorance. I know how the AP is presented to work. Don't allow hubris to prevent seeing the "forest through the trees". Labeling someone a "conspiracy theorist" again reveals more about you than the person you judge, and in the future when you tear someones viewpoint up with "the smallest effort" perhaps with a little more effort you can greater inform yourself.

This is you:

The large majority of "news" that we see presented by the "media" is gotten from two sources, Reuters and the Associated Press. Imagine if both Reuters and The AP were owned by the same family/entity... It is "rumored" that they are, by the Rothschild family and its interests... One can start connecting some dots...

We're getting into pearls before swine territory. Have a lovely and paranoid day.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I never said the good guy picture trick was used only by the left. Left or right media they all do it. I simply gave you a exemple anyone would remember.

No, what I thought was revealing is that you saw the belief that someone who stalks and then guns down a kid should be investigated as a "leftist" one.

 

[Butterbean]

...

 

[Darkballs]

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

I'm always curious about people who call every opinion they are against as "propaganda," but then have no problem citing sources that believe Miley Cyrus is a cyborg.

 

[IDL]

I'm always curious about people who call every opinion they are against as "propaganda," but then have no problem citing sources that believe Miley Cyrus is a cyborg.

huh? I don't think opposing opinions are propaganda. They are opposing opinions. This is quite natural. Cavemen had opposing opinions even. So I don't know where you are coming from.

And I don't think Miley is a cyborg.. Maybe a money making machine? Seems your post is just a random shot in the dark.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

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

You have to develop the power to determine who is credible and who isn't, the same way you need that skill when communicating with people who aren't part of the media.

When you see internet ads for a magic pill that makes fat melt away, do you believe it?
When you get an email from a Nigerian prince offering to share his fortune, if you can front him a G, do you believe it?


The New York Post has been owned by alleged human being Rupert Murdoch for decades, and as such, is little more than rough, but colorful toilet paper.

 

[Darkballs]

And I don't think Miley is a cyborg..

Well that's a good start. Now just turn a critical eye towards websites that do.

huh? I don't think opposing opinions are propaganda. They are opposing opinions. This is quite natural. Cavemen had opposing opinions even. So I don't know where you are coming from.

Do you even keep track of what you previously post? I'm not talking about opposing opinions. I never even used the term. I'm talking about your amazing ability to drape the propaganda blanket on virtually everything except your own sources:

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.

The compartmentalization of the population in terms of what messages they receive is an important part of the control system.

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

And that's just from one thread FFS.

 

[IDL]

Well that's a good start. Now just turn a critical eye towards websites that do.



Do you even keep track of what you previously post? I'm not talking about opposing opinions. I never even used the term. I'm talking about your amazing ability to drape the propaganda blanket on virtually everything except your own sources:

And that's just from one thread FFS.

I think the point has been made in this thread already that everything should be looked at with a critical eye. It's a universal notion really. The mass media is used by the big global players, but sure it doesn't mean the smaller media should be taken at face value obviously.

You used the term " every opinion they are against " meaning in the given context every opinion that opposes mine? I'm not sure how else to interpret what you wrote, but I do not consider opinions that I disagree with simply as propaganda that would make no sense. People disagree with me all the time and I respect that. I see people on the media that I disagree with as well and it doesn't mean it's automatically propaganda. Propaganda is more complicated having to do with things like context, framing, spin, cherry picking, painting narratives, manipulating with emotions, and all that to lead people to predetermined conclusions , implant ideas, and alter behaviors. Not simply someone having an opinion.

I'm really at a loss as to where you are going with this.

 

[Darkballs]

I'm really at a loss as to where you are going with this.

I'll try to make it real simple then:

Ignore the word "opinion." What I'm mocking is you calling virtually all MSM as "propaganda" while posting sources from sites that include miley/cyborg stories and assertions that the Protocols are factual.

You know, the same thing you get criticized for time and time again.

 

[IDL]

I'll try to make it real simple then:

Ignore the word "opinion." What I'm mocking is you calling virtually all MSM as "propaganda" while posting sources from sites that include miley/cyborg stories and assertions that the Protocols are factual.

You know, the same thing you get criticized for time and time again.

So you are finding ways to take things out of context in attempt to mock me?

Is this your way of disagreeing with what I posted? Did you take offense to it or something? I don't get it.

 

[Darkballs]

So you are finding ways to take things out of context in attempt to mock me?

Is this your way of disagreeing with what I posted? Did you take offense to it or something? I don't get it.

I used the plainest language I could. Come on man. We take the piss out of each other all the time but I still think you're a generally nice guy.

My issue with you is that you don't apply a consistent standard to "media." You reject many a source (those you deem MSM) as being propaganda while championing some pretty cheesy sites.

But, forget all that. Honest question (not taking the piss, I promise): On what basis do apply skepticism to a particular media outlet? I mean, what makes you go "these guys aren't trustworthy"?

 

[bowened]

I worked in TV for four years and it was enough to make lose all respect for local television news.

 

[Son of Jamin]

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?

I can give you a recent example how they shape a report according to their overall narrative when it comes to being pro-immigration:

Dagens Nyheter (Today's News) is one of Sweden's most "respected" and circulated newspaper. They posted an article under their section called "Good News". The headline was:

Report: Immigration is profitable for Britain

The article then goes on about how immigration to Britain gives more revenue to the government than it costs and that the immigrants are more well-educated than their British counterparts. The study they are reporting from is a study made by Dr Tommaso Frattini and Professor Christian Dustmann from the University College of London.

The problem with DN's reporting is that they NEVER mention in the article that the profitable immigration to the UK comes from other EU-countries, while immigration from outside of the EU is extremely costly,

 

[TrainInVain]

I try to avoid watching video news casts and look for online articles I can read as much as possible. I bounce from news outlet to news outlet, much easier for me to try to filter out the political slant of whatever site I'm on.
Don't have much trust for any one source these days, think fact checking in the media is at an all time low.

 

[IDL]

I used the plainest language I could. Come on man. We take the piss out of each other all the time but I still think you're a generally nice guy.

My issue with you is that you don't apply a consistent standard to "media." You reject many a source (those you deem MSM) as being propaganda while championing some pretty cheesy sites.

But, forget all that. Honest question (not taking the piss, I promise): On what basis do apply skepticism to a particular media outlet? I mean, what makes you go "these guys aren't trustworthy"?

Alright, well sure "media" is of course a general term. The mass corporate media serves the establishment (doesn't bite the hand that feeds it, works with governments, others corporations, other global players etc) and is very sophisticated serving that purpose. It serves the same purpose as say the Chinese state media would but on a much larger scale and in a more advanced way. So it represents 'pop news', 'pop viewpoints' etc fit for the masses that will keep the empire pleased, so to speak.

As to your question, all media large and small should be critically viewed and it often comes down to what they can get away with. The smaller more independent sources can delve into things the bigger ones won't touch because they don't have to worry about getting funding cut, crossing big players, etc. So the more independent from the system the more critical they can be.

I don't know if there is a real litmus test beyond examining the content itself, but with the majors they are restricted by their very nature of being connected to the establishment. And sure, a lot of independent sites do host some fluff, so it takes sifting.

 

[Darkballs]

The smaller more independent sources can delve into things the bigger ones won't touch because they don't have to worry about getting funding cut, crossing big players, etc. So the more independent from the system the more critical they can be.

I think you're grossly misreading what media is out for. Both big media and small media have a profit motive. Generally, that profit motive is ratings driven. The higher the ratings, the more the outlet can charge for advertising or viewership. As such, all media, both big and small, has the potential to be slimy in it's pursuit for the almighty dollar.

Media isn't showering us with pop culture because evil overlords are trying to keep us docile. They're doing it because that's what sells in a celebrity driven society.


So sure, be skeptical. But keep that healthy skepticism on the little guy as well. Just because he's the one guy saying it, that doesn't mean he's the more dogged investigator unbeholden to the elites. It could just be that he's wrong or full of shit.

 

[computer fogie]

Fox is a big company, but it's ideological media, which I'd distinguish from mainstream media.

You asked a stupid question (can you show me something indicating our mainstream media lies?), he gave you what you asked for, then you backtrack by saying that Fox News is NOT mainstream media? That sounds pretty disingenous to me.

Can you try any harder to defend the MSM? To convince us that we are not being fooled? The MSM is a tool of the governments that give it their stories.

How do you think the MSM gets it's "news" about government workings? Do you suppose there are reporters sitting in on meetings, notepads in hand? No, the gov't gives them their stories, telling them exactly what they want the citizens to hear. The MSM does what they are told, and we get bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can give you a recent example how they shape a report according to their overall narrative when it comes to being pro-immigration:

Interesting post (including the snipped portion). I have no knowledge of this subject outside the U.S.

You asked a stupid question (can you show me something indicating our mainstream media lies?), he gave you what you asked for, then you backtrack by saying that Fox News is NOT mainstream media? That sounds pretty disingenous to me.

So it's a "stupid question" to ask someone to elaborate on their position. I guess if you think that, it explains why you're such a lousy poster. And, no, Fox isn't mainstream media, and I have never said it is so I wasn't backtracking or disingenuous.

Can you try any harder to defend the MSM? To convince us that we are not being fooled?

This is what I said, ""You can argue that they're not covering things they should cover, that they tend to have buried assumptions that are reflective of a certain worldview, that they don't understand complex issues and report badly because of that, that they have a balance bias, etc. But "lies" is not accurate."

So, no, if you look at my posting honestly, I am not defending the MSM or trying to convince you that you're not being fooled. There are significant flaws in MSM coverage that can misled people, but it's not some sinister conspiracy--it's more in the nature of the business (having non-experts sometimes explaining complex technical subjects to general audiences) and of human interactions (everyone has buried assumptions and unconscious beliefs that are wrong).

The MSM is a tool of the governments that give it their stories.

How do you think the MSM gets it's "news" about government workings? Do you suppose there are reporters sitting in on meetings, notepads in hand? No, the gov't gives them their stories, telling them exactly what they want the citizens to hear. The MSM does what they are told, and we get bullshit.

Well, no, this is stupid. Your problem is that you have no idea how journalism works. I mean, yes, there are some lazy reporters who get fed stories and don't always go the extra mile to uncover every aspect of it, but even the worst high-level journalist is doing a lot more than that, and the idea that they "do what they are told," is laughable bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As to your question, all media large and small should be critically viewed and it often comes down to what they can get away with. The smaller more independent sources can delve into things the bigger ones won't touch because they don't have to worry about getting funding cut, crossing big players, etc. So the more independent from the system the more critical they can be.

This is actually very much the opposite of reality. Small media companies are usually much more reliant on individual funding sources (many of them are money losers that are kept alive by donations). The big players are much more independent in that sense. Even with sources, someone outside of Bumfuck, Alabama can easily cut access to the Bumfuck Daily News, but no one's cutting off the NYT because they don't like what they've written.

You're a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Look at your reaction to the Karen Hudes thing--she pushes a crazy CT that you believe in, and she's a great source, and then the same person says that the Vatican is infiltrated by a non-human, humanoid terrestrial species, and you distance yourself from that, saying that she's revealing a mix of true and false things as part of a trick to fool people, when the straightforward explanation is that the IMF's claim that she was dismissed because of her mental illness is correct. As long as a source says what you want to hear, they can be caught fabricating quotes and attributing them to famous people and engaging in all kinds of slimy tactics to fool people or delusional rantings, and you'll find it credible.