you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

I thought it was (partially) because of the media wanting stories to be read, and sensationalising them to the point of meaninglessness.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The majority of media outlets are owned by oligarchs. The stories published are ones that somehow reinforce the system that keeps the oligarchs in power. Independent media is branded as "fake news" because the oligarchs are trying to keep control of the narrative.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

FYI: Did you know magnora7 is a Rothschild oligarch? That's why he knows so much about his family. And d3rr looks like MiniMe.

:P

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They both work out of Eglin. ;-)

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There is also a lot of fake news around, though. You used to at least be able to trust the mainstream media, which you can't as of late, so I agree that it's hypocritical and manipulative for them to do so.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The mainstream news always lied. However, public awareness of the lies is a recent development.

  • Media can never be trusted if their revenue comes from advertising.
  • Media shouldn't be trusted if their revenue is from foundations. Think tanks, PBS, NPR, Scientific journals, etc.
  • Media may be trustworthy if they are supporter funded, assuming you understand their worldview, and political agenda. Every news story is told from a perspective.

Everyone should learn intellectual self defense. I recommend" manufacturing consent" by Chomsky. He certainly has his own biases and agenda, but this book is as legit as it gets for this topic. You can become a media selfdefense blue-belt by understanding the basics.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You mean the "fake news" that "reputable media outlets" have been peddling for years, like Iraq had WMD's and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9-11? The only difference between now and then is that nowadays the internet offers public platforms to people who used to not have a way to spread the truth. The oligarchs no longer have total control of the narrative like they used to.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Exactly like that.

Although, there is one other difference. You've got stuff thrown at you so quickly that you tend to just believe all the stories, instead of actually analysing them and checking whether they make sense. Only a simple heuristic is used, instead of the much more complex heuristics that take time and pondering. That means that you end up taking in mostly the things that you already believe in ⇒ echochamber.

[–]CA_Taxpayer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, you are totally right about this. A lot of people get their news from headlines and sound bites of publications that produce what they WANT to hear. This self-filtering/lack of real info has a lot to do with why our country is so divided, instead of coming together to fight the oligarchs like France has. Someone posted this on Reddit and it is right on the money: https://i.redd.it/c5t956aksa821.jpg

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know most of the things on there.

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I agree, but what stories get sensationalised?

One very obvious example to me would be the media coverage of trump vs Clinton.

Would you say the media were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal for both parties or would you say the candidates were treated differently when it comes to press coverage?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Whatever they think will work. If there are a lot of things, whatever empowers their particular political stance.

Why not both?

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why not both?

Yes, why not both. Would you say both candidates were treated equally from the press??

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Which candidates?

Yes I would say both candidates were treated equally by the press.

Both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were treated equally terribly.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly.
And Gary Johnson, and all candidates that are excluded by the duopoly.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And McGoofy.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The medias were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal, each organisation with a different agenda, and some were taking it further than others. I didn't really follow it though; all I got from it was that all candidates were terrible people.