Political So now what

[Herzog]

How does anyone become informed without the media? That basically leaves person experience as the only source of knowledge which is seriously limiting.

You mistake "informed" with "misinformed". I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed.

Again, offloading the extremely important aspect of personal experience to "qualified professionals". Dangerous, in my humble opinion.

 

[02SE]

 

[Houndoc]

There are lots of independent media sources now and they are the ones I review just as you have stated.

In your mind, what makes a media source "independent" (and from what) and what do you base a claim that those sources are inherently more trustworthy than "major" media?

 

[mbryson]

I wish I trusted A media source. I have yet to be involved with one that actually is interested in finding out facts and reporting facts. Let the reader/viewer/consumer draw their own conclusions. I'm not sure that's ever been the case in journalism? DEFINITELY not in the past 70-90 years in the US and I'd likely submit that opinion to the late 1700s.

"History is written by the victors"

I see our current media as "propoganda". I don't have time or interest for that shit. I'll try to be a good person ("Golden Rule" type), find things I enjoy doing and be self-reliant and raise self-reliant kids as much as I possibly can. I lean to the .gov staying out of people's way as much as possible, providing communal infrastructure and national defense. That probably makes me a Libertarian? Maybe, maybe not? I've not found any political ideology that makes sense to me. On some planes I side with the Dems (much less than the majority). Other planes the Repubs (there's a lot of "extreme" stupid in that party though) but the radicals in both parties are total idiots yet seem to dominate each party. The other "third" party's are all flawed with extremism in their own respects.

 

[Houndoc]

Wikipedia is not exactly a truthful resource, but I’ll entertain your tomfoolery. The Ray Epps that the DOJ has only recently charged after 3 years but has never been arrested when he is on video inciting people. The Ray Epps who the FBI director will not confirm or deny if he has ties to a 3 letter agency. The Ray Epps who has been reported to have worked for the CIA.

Seem plenty of denial of his having any connection to the FBI, and I don't know your source to claim 'reported' to have worked for the CIA.

Ray Epps, man at center of right-wing Jan. 6 conspiracy, pleads guilty

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Ray Epps will face between zero and six months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of disorderly conduct.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[anderson750]

Seem plenty of denial of his having any connection to the FBI, and I don't know your source to claim 'reported' to have worked for the CIA.

Ray Epps, man at center of right-wing Jan. 6 conspiracy, pleads guilty

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Ray Epps will face between zero and six months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of disorderly conduct.

www.cbsnews.com

It's been pretty well proven that Google controls what can be buried and made invisible, so I give about as much credibility to your ability to provide me with your Google searches as you do with my "conspiracy theories". Besides, CBS news is not exactly what I would point to as a inedpendent and unbiased news outlet.

 

[Pike2350]

It's been pretty well proven that Google controls what can be buried and made invisible, so I give about as much credibility to your ability to provide me with your Google searches as you do with my "conspiracy theories". Besides, CBS news is not exactly what I would point to as a inedpendent and unbiased news outlet.

Not that I'm taking a side...but I see this type of "excuse" a lot when people say things about conspiracy theories. They claim things are "proven" then, when something is brought up to question that proof, then there is a bigger conspiracy keeping the "truth" and can't be found when searched. It almost reminds me of the days of a guy in school saying "Yeah, well I have a gf in Canada, but she isn't on Social Media, and all I have is this picture of her to prove she's real"

Seems very convienent. I know very little about the whole Ray Epps stuff, only what I have seen from both more right wing sources (which apparently because they don't tow the Trump line are no longer right wing enough) like Fox News or a little bit here or there from CNN. I consider both sides have their side they push and I generally feel the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I will say, for both sides, if you think it is "proven" post up your sources. I'm all for getting all information and misinformation out there and letting the other side decide....but to just cry "misinformation" and saying it's proven that you can't find the truth, yet claim to have the truth serves no purpose.

 

[anderson750]

Not that I'm taking a side...but I see this type of "excuse" a lot when people say things about conspiracy theories. They claim things are "proven" then, when something is brought up to question that proof, then there is a bigger conspiracy keeping the "truth" and can't be found when searched. It almost reminds me of the days of a guy in school saying "Yeah, well I have a gf in Canada, but she isn't on Social Media, and all I have is this picture of her to prove she's real"

Seems very convienent. I know very little about the whole Ray Epps stuff, only what I have seen from both more right wing sources (which apparently because they don't tow the Trump line are no longer right wing enough) like Fox News or a little bit here or there from CNN. I consider both sides have their side they push and I generally feel the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I will say, for both sides, if you think it is "proven" post up your sources. I'm all for getting all information and misinformation out there and letting the other side decide....but to just cry "misinformation" and saying it's proven that you can't find the truth, yet claim to have the truth serves no purpose.

We are living in Orson Wells 1984. Many of us just do not trust the information that is being fed to the masses. its easy to call us conspiracy theorists....I jokingly call myself one. With everything the media did to cry Russian Collusion and call people conspiracy theorists to only be proven 100% false, I do not trust any media ........ even conservative media 50%.

The boom of AI is going to make this worse.

NJ police warn that AI-generated story about fatal Christmas shooting is false

The article was published by New Jersey Insight and republished by Newsbreak.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Herzog]

The boom of AI is going to make this worse.

On purpose. So they can start pushing their "everybody needs a Universal Digital ID to prove you're a human" bullshit.

 

[Pike2350]

We are living in Orson Wells 1984. Many of us just do not trust the information that is being fed to the masses. its easy to call us conspiracy theorists....I jokingly call myself one. With everything the media did to cry Russian Collusion and call people conspiracy theorists to only be proven 100% false, I do not trust any media ........ even conservative media 50%.

The boom of AI is going to make this worse.

NJ police warn that AI-generated story about fatal Christmas shooting is false

The article was published by New Jersey Insight and republished by Newsbreak.

news.yahoo.com

that is fine, and I'm not meaning to call you out specifically. However, you get your information from somewhere. Saying you don't trust the media is fine, but who do you trust? I can almost 100% promise it is very much an echo chamber to your ideas and ideaologies. But, I would be curious to at least see the sources you use to get the ideas you do have and trust, since it's not "the media"

 

[Houndoc]

We are living in Orson Wells 1984. Many of us just do not trust the information that is being fed to the masses. its easy to call us conspiracy theorists....I jokingly call myself one. With everything the media did to cry Russian Collusion and call people conspiracy theorists to only be proven 100% false, I do not trust any media ........ even conservative media 50%.

You do seem very certain as to what is or is not truth for someone who says they don't trust what they read or hear. You have to be getting your information somewhere.

 

[Houndoc]

. Besides, CBS news is not exactly what I would point to as a inedpendent and unbiased news outlet.

I will toss the same type of questions to you that I asked glockman. What makes an news organization "independent" (from what?) and what makes them (if they exist) inherently more trustworthy?
In your other post you mentioned you have a much higher trust in so-called "conservative media"- are they really any more "independent" (they are clearly tied to a specific political cause, often a specific politician) or is it just they say things that fit your existing beliefs?

 

[Herzog]

don't do your own research news - Google Search

www.google.com

Huh, almost like all the big ones agree that looking into things on your own is "dangerous".

 

[glockman]

In your mind, what makes a media source "independent" (and from what) and what do you base a claim that those sources are inherently more trustworthy than "major" media?

They aren't owned by a major media corporation, that's independent to me. They may not be more trustworthy but they don't have a history of blatant lies.
For example, Heraldo Rivera still works for several media corps. How can you trust a man who blatantly lied on camera about what he saw at the Superdome during Katrina? Claimed he whitenessed rapes and murders when there were none. That's not COVID style misunderstanding, that's out right lies.
Many other examples in recent years. Everyone has bias, not everyone gets their paycheck from a legacy media company.

Lastly, Rupert Murdock testified in court that Fox isn't responsible for providing accurate news, they are an entertainment company. That was the start of the end of me trusting TV news.

 

[glockman]

don't do your own research news - Google Search

www.google.com

Huh, almost like all the big ones agree that looking into things on your own is "dangerous".

People aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, that seems to align well with the people in power now. I don't mean Democrats, I mean the establishment.

 

[anderson750]

I will toss the same type of questions to you that I asked glockman. What makes an news organization "independent" (from what?) and what makes them (if they exist) inherently more trustworthy?
In your other post you mentioned you have a much higher trust in so-called "conservative media"- are they really any more "independent" (they are clearly tied to a specific political cause, often a specific politician) or is it just they say things that fit your existing beliefs?

We are living in Orson Wells 1984. Many of us just do not trust the information that is being fed to the masses. its easy to call us conspiracy theorists....I jokingly call myself one. With everything the media did to cry Russian Collusion and call people conspiracy theorists to only be proven 100% false, I do not trust any media ........ even conservative media 50%.

The boom of AI is going to make this worse.

NJ police warn that AI-generated story about fatal Christmas shooting is false

The article was published by New Jersey Insight and republished by Newsbreak.

news.yahoo.com

I think in this post, I said that I don't trust conservative media any more than do the other mainstream outlets. My beliefs and values are aligned with conservative ideaology that actually leans more towards libertarian.

 

[anderson750]

People aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, that seems to align well with the people in power now. I don't mean Democrats, I mean the establishment.

Anybody who thinks establishment Republicans are better than establishment Democrats are crazy. DC is a Uniparty that fights in public but drinks scotch and smokes cigars together after hours talking about what their next put or call is going to be. While not as good as Pelosi, Dan Crenshaw had a pretty good year in the stock market.

 

[Herzog]

Anybody who thinks establishment Republicans are better than establishment Democrats are crazy. DC is a Uniparty that fights in public but drinks scotch and smokes cigars together after hours talking about what their next put or call is going to be. While not as good as Pelosi, Dan Crenshaw had a pretty good year in the stock market.

 

[mbryson]

 

[Houndoc]

They aren't owned by a major media corporation, that's independent to me. They may not be more trustworthy but they don't have a history of blatant lies.
For example, Heraldo Rivera still works for several media corps. How can you trust a man who blatantly lied on camera about what he saw at the Superdome during Katrina? Claimed he whitenessed rapes and murders when there were none. That's not COVID style misunderstanding, that's out right lies.
Many other examples in recent years. Everyone has bias, not everyone gets their paycheck from a legacy media company.

Lastly, Rupert Murdock testified in court that Fox isn't responsible for providing accurate news, they are an entertainment company. That was the start of the end of me trusting TV news.

I am glad you brought up Rivera and Fox (where Rivera recently worked) since that is where many Conservatives get their "news."