Do you trust the mainstream media?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Bowser, Oct 11, 2016.

  1. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    I've taken to watching alternative media. Right or wrong, it does offer a counterpoint to what I see on the television...

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    I know I don't listen to Russian propaganda.
     
    billvon and joepistole like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    Why not? There might be some truth in it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    Because it's designed for outcomes that benefit Russia. How do you know any of it is true? How do you know it hasn't been altered, edited, or selectively presented for a specific purpose?
     
  8. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    We can make the same claim for any information dissemination. Alternative views, regardless of their source, give just that, an alternative view.
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,662
    That's a big 'No'.

    The US mainstream media decide what is and isn't news, which stories to put on top of the front page and which to ignore, and then they try to tell everyone what it all means. I don't trust their judgement at all. It's clear to me that their interests don't coincide with my interests. The more the interests of the media elites predominate, the more people like me (the American middle class) are marginalized.

    I don't think that it's precisely a conspiracy though. It's more along the lines of group-think. A disproportionate number of the editors/producers of mainstream news live in New York City and a few other large cities, attended the same schools, eat at the same restaurants and are invited to the same parties. Those at the top end all know each other and come from similar backgrounds. So they all tend to share similar views about things.

    It becomes self-reinforcing and self-sustaining. For underlings further down the pecking order, career success comes to depend in part on conformity with their organization's opinions.

    I think that the same broad dynamic is visible not only here, but in Europe too. We saw it with Brexit. All of the opinion makers in the even more inbred London elites, in government, the 'quality' media, academia and business, were for 'remain', but the British people just didn't buy it.

    Me too. I couldn't agree more.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    I don't think there is anything wrong with watching/reading other media but I view it in a more critical way. I don't read/view crackpot media but I would watch Russian media or Al Jazeera.

    I don't particularly do it to learn more about the news but I do it sometimes to hear their point of view. Sometimes it isn't much different than our mainstream media. If it's too slanted for too long I quit watching.

    There is nothing particularly wrong with our media as far as what they report if it is meant to be actual news and not on a show that is editorial in nature. Even Fox and MSNBC generally report the same things on their news hour.

    I don't bother with any news, print or broadcast, that is crackpot in nature. I don't really care about that point of view.

    The bigger problem with our media, IMO, is that journalism just isn't what it used to be. The emphasis is now more on entertainment or on speed since so much more content has to be filled.

    There are few hard hitting journalists. The President (any President) rarely has press conferences where journalists can ask the tough questions. Everything is too managed. No one asks hard questions because they might lose their access and just due to laziness and lax standards.

    Who reads the paper anymore. It's all fluff.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    All media in it's need to sell, will sensationalise stories to some extent.
    In accepting that fact, I believe the true gist of any story can be properly gauged in the mainstream.
    I will at times purposely read two opposing political views, compare them and gauge the "truth" as best I can.
    Like the previous poster, known conspiracy nonsense and crackpottery I generally discard and ignore, unless on the odd occasion I need a good laugh.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Well it would do. Nonsense is always a "counterpoint" to truth, after all.

    By all means look for different points of view, but don't forget to engage your own critical faculties (assuming you have some) before concluding which viewpoint is more likely to be right. (Anything with Russian fingerprints is worth treating with suspicion, in view of their well-documented misrepresentations.)
     
  13. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    I think it's important look closely at what we see and hear in the general media. The current political situation seem to indicate that a great many people are questioning it, which is why I so much enjoy alternative media.

     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    The current political situation in the USA makes it a global laughing stock. And one of the main problems is that people choose media sources that reconfirm their prejudices.

    Every country has the problem, because that's what the internet tends to do, but the USA, as usual, is in the vanguard of the trend and takes it to a further extreme than anywhere else. (In the UK, the same phenomenon has resulted in Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn, so I am not gloating.)
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,936
    Whatever, it's been proven Trump lies every 5 minutes he talks. He's a racist, vulgar, authoritarian who admires our enemies and called them out to attack us. It's really no comparison. Sure Hillary played up some things, it's nothing out of the ordinary, certainly nothing sinister. Also while it's true (and entirely expected) that the Democratic Party would choose to represent the Democrat in the race, it's not like a few statements they made amounted to fixing the race against Sanders, who had a very good showing and managed to change the Democratic platform. And she got no money from the Clinton Foundation, thus no corruption is possible. At the same time, Republican donors effect policy all the time, I don't see any of them calling for an end to money in politics, in fact they work to get more money into politics.
     
    zgmc likes this.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    The alternative media is in large part why we have the current political situation we do. When you have widely popular media outlets that consistently claim things like Clinton killed people, abused women and is literally the devil, you get political discussions that are quite divorced from reality. If we had media that was more reality-based we would not be seeing the rancor we do today.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Because there is no truth in it. It's a waste of time. I listen to right wing media regularly. I read right wing materials. Yeah, I occasionally hear something new, but is almost always bullshit. What I find most interesting is to see how right wing media spins the truth. However, there are times when they just do a manure dump. Hannity did that yesterday. Shit just isn't interesting.

    Why would I want to waste my time with consuming information from sources I know are mostly bogus for the offhanded extremely unlikely chance that I may find a gem? My odds would be better with the lottery. I don't have that kind of time or interest. The process would put me to sleep.
     
  18. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    There seems to be a movement taking place, a direct reaction to the new norm. I don't believe it can be neatly defined, but it's happening nonetheless. It's allies are not just those from a conservative lean; it also includes those who would label themselves "Traditional Liberals." It's actually exciting to watch. Anyway, I will let the gay guy try to define it...

     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    It's not like straight people have a monopoly on right wingnut insanity Bowser. Milo is one of Breitbart's stars - "the dangerous faggot":

    http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/
     
    joepistole likes this.
  20. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,429
    Dangerous to who and what? Can you imagine a room full of conservatives giving standing applause to a homosexual who enters the room? I've seen it. This is what I mean about something new brewing in the background. They are coming from all directions, people who are sincerely worried about the direction we are going. I don't know that it will consolidate into an identifiable entity, but it is happening now.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    It is Boswer ;

    There is much more going on in our world ; that is not covered . By mainstream media.

    Because it would make the general populace much more aware whats going on in the bigger picture .

    And those that control the bigger picture won't allow questioning and inquisitive intellect .

    They don't promote new findings investigation .
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2016
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    How the hell would I know? You're the aspiring dittohead here... Click on the link or take a look the next time you are sucking up Breitbart's slime - it's his tagline:

    "Welcome to the Dangerous Faggot Tour! My name is Milo Yiannopoulos, the supervillain of the internet and the future owner of 4chan.org."
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The Democrats are not denying the content of the documents released by Wikileaks. Instead, they are setting up a distraction, by making Russia the story. Many people, on the left, are fooled into thinking if Russian releases truth, which is not being denied, the truth will magically become a lie. This is an example of relative morality, that the left likes. Truth is relative, to who says it, and not to the actual content.

    The question one might ask is, why is getting the truth out, about the real Democratic party, so important to Russia; if we assume Russia is behind this? If the Russians were giving out misinformation, that is one thing. But the Democrats are not denying the information. Why would Russia help the American people see the truth that should normally be hidden? Why wouldn't the evil Russians marvel at the ability of the Democrats and their media wing, to lie, use misdirection and propaganda?

    Much of this has problem has to do with the conditioning called PC. PC is about the correct public face and voice. However, it does not address what people really feel in private. This is evident with the democratic party. They say the right things to make people feel good in public, but say other things in private. This is why there is so much division in America. This is dark side of feminism, where you smile at your enemy at the party, but gossip about her behind their backs when they are out of of sight. The party smile is PC.

    The Democrats have been the party of division even before the Civil War. It took a war to reunite America. Trump is not PC, because he merges his private opinions with his public opinions, so people can hear the truth of what he really believes and not see the prettier of his two faces; his PC face. Politically correct means what is right and proper for a politician, but not always for a real person. Free speech is there so there are not internally divided citizens, public and private facts, which translates into a divided country. Russia seems to prefer one face, over two faces, since two-faces, extrapolate to international events may lead to WW3, as distrust and propaganda reign.
     

Share This Page