'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers

[blackprince]

5 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so out of touch with the world. Like the BBC and the Guardian, the NY Times is entirely leftist spin. Even the sports pages serve their social engineering agenda. And what is more, their agenda has an emotional rather than a rational basis. This should be transparent enough to any clear-minded individual.

 

Anyone who discredits the idea of consipiracy theories need only consider the existence of political bias in the news media. Or are the conspiracy deniers also saying it also a conspiracy theory to assume that each news organisation has a covert political agenda?

Ouch.

 

The BBC is a public broadcaster with a charter to be neutral. It is the  most fact based major agency in the world. It doesn't do lengthy opinion pieces.

 

The Guardian is editorially independent, It is not owned by a right wing billionaire.

 

I make no bones about it - I am a lifelong British Liberal (a la JS  Mill or Keynes not the Libdems). You may be aware that Churchill was a party Liberal more frequently than he was a party Tory - truth be told - he was an opportunist - but I have frequently disagreed with US progressives here (including Jeff)- not so much because of their beliefs, but because of their methods.

 

Politics is complex. Binary soundbites treat politics like a football game , and the "progressives" here are just as guilty as the people they deride.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

Politics is complex. Binary soundbites treat politics like a football game , and the "progressives" here are just as guilty as the people they deride.

Except for one metric, links to evidence and support for arguments. If you do a count I believe you will find a large disparity between the left and the right.

[tgw]

6 minutes ago, blackprince said:

The BBC is a public broadcaster with a charter to be neutral. It is the  most fact based major agency in the world. It doesn't do lengthy opinion pieces.

The BBC reads more or less neutral in what they report, but certainly aren't neutral in what they choose to report.
Also, many stories are one-sided and often lack a properly researched counterargument when there is one.

[blackprince]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Except for one metric, links to evidence and support for arguments. If you do a count I believe you will find a large disparity between the left and the right.

I agree.

 

But I also note than when the "bad guys" do give evidence the "good guys" say 'give us more', 'do a poll', or 'we don't believe your evidence'.

 

Many of my links to the Guardian or the BBC have been derided or taken out of context by the "good guys"; none of the "bad guys" has ever done that to me.

 

I conclude that the method of engagement of many of the "good guys" owes more to Cromwellian Puritanism, reverse McCarthyism, or Salem witch burning.

 

I believe many of the people who consider themselves to be "good guys" are exporting their national problems into the international domain and using this forum to do so.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, blackprince said:

I agree.

 

But I also note than when the "bad guys" do give evidence the "good guys" say 'give us more', 'do a poll', or 'we don't believe your evidence'.

 

Many of my links to the Guardian or the BBC have been derided or taken out of context by the "good guys"; none of the "bad guys" has ever done that to me.

 

I conclude that the method of engagement of many of the "good guys" owes more to Cromwellian Puritanism, reverse McCarthyism, or Salem witch burning.

 

I believe many of the people who consider themselves to be "good guys" are exporting their national problems into the international domain and using this forum to do so.

Re your last para. To a large extent, the anti vax crusaders are motivated by politics and the epicenter (not all) of this phenomenon lies in the US so it could be argued that the greater culprits of exporting national problems into the international arena are really the bad guys. This one topic has dominated internationally oriented debate on this forum for a while now.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Ouch.

 

The BBC is a public broadcaster with a charter to be neutral. It is the  most fact based major agency in the world. It doesn't do lengthy opinion pieces.

 

The Guardian is editorially independent, It is not owned by a right wing billionaire.

 

I make no bones about it - I am a lifelong British Liberal (a la JS  Mill or Keynes not the Libdems). You may be aware that Churchill was a party Liberal more frequently than he was a party Tory - truth be told - he was an opportunist - but I have frequently disagreed with US progressives here (including Jeff)- not so much because of their beliefs, but because of their methods.

 

Politics is complex. Binary soundbites treat politics like a football game , and the "progressives" here are just as guilty as the people they deride.

This is another instance of reflexive both-sidesim. Certainly in the USA, at least, there's no reality-denying majority on the left that compares to the majority on the right that denies that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, and overwhelmingly believes the 2020 elections were stolen.

U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats

About nine-in-ten Democrats (88%, including independents who lean to the party) now consider climate change a major threat to the nation, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted March 3-29. That’s up 27 percentage points from a 2009 survey. 

By contrast, the 6 percentage point increase among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents since 2009 is not statistically significant. In the new survey, about three-in-ten Republicans (31%) consider climate change a major threat, while 45% say it is a minor threat and 24% say it is not a threat to the nation...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/16/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/

 

Stunning survey gives grim view of flourishing anti-democratic opinions

The poll found about 3 in 10 Americans, 31 percent, believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, including two-thirds of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of those who trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Among those who trust far-right outlets like One America News Network and Newsmax, 97 percent say they believe the election — which even Trump’s own cybersecurity and election security officials agreed was the safest and most secure ever conducted in the United States — was stolen.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/579160-stunning-survey-gives-grim-view-of-flourishing-anti-democratic-opinions

 

 Generally  speaking, in countries where the issues of vaccination, social distancing, and mask wearing have become politicized it's rightists who are far more likely to oppose vaccinations. For example, in Germany, there's a strong correlation between opposition to vaccination and political stance. The same goes for Italy, Poland and much of the eastern quadrant of the EU. In France, the opposition comes from extremists on both the right and left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, the MSM has an overt political agenda and none of them make any secret about it. If you think otherwise, cut the innuendo and elucidate what those agendas are.

Even if the various media sources each constituted a conspiracy, which they clearly do not, the fact is that the right wing consistently cites conspiracies of vast proportions involving thousands of scientists, financiers, and politicians from many diffferent organizations. It's obviously nonsense that with such a vast number of people involved, anything like a conspiracy is possible.

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Even if the various media sources each constituted a conspiracy, which they clearly do not, the fact is that the right wing consistently cites conspiracies of vast proportions involving thousands of scientists, financiers, and politicians from many diffferent organizations. It's obviously nonsense that with such a vast number of people involved, anything like a conspiracy is possible.

Another tactic the conspiracy theorists like to employ on this forum is "hit and run". They make accusations of conspiracies and then its crickets when challenged.

[LarrySR]

Republicans know they can’t win over the blue collar voters (the base) with their policies that benefit corporations and the rich so they attempt to control the electorate thru gerrymandering, voter suppression and a disinformation narrative thru a right wing media ecosystem, going from Fox, the NY Post, Sinclair, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, to talk radio, like Rush Limbaugh, Savage Nation or the craziest conspiracy sites like OANN or Info Wars, creating a singular network where the producers link to each other. The goal is to deliberately infuriate and enrage the viewers to motivate them to vote. 
 

An exhaustive media analysis by Harvard and MIT computer scientists prove, the  blissfully misinformed right wing media viewers are intentionally locked into a right wing propaganda feedback loop. 

https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2018-11/how-propaganda-feedback-loop-right-wing-media-keeps-more-quarter-americans-siloed 

 

The 24/7 Republican political infomercials disguised as news produce fact resistant humans as they mock science, education, push conspiracies, hate and fear to outrage & motivate the voters. 

Anything that gets in their way needs to be demonized and fought against at every step -- taxation, environmental regulations, worker rights, higher minimum wage, education & universal health care. 

The Republican ’blue collar base’ has been programed by the Republicans behavioral science marketing to vote against their own interests out of fear & hatred of their perceived enemies, the “evil, anti American Democrats.” 

 

Anyone that doesn’t realize what the right wing media is up to, has the critical thinking skills of a toddler. 

 

[sirineou]

Propaganda, resides on what you are not being told ,rather than what you are told. Of course what you are told would sound right, it would be stupid if it not, but there is always a But, and the "But" is conveniently left out.

Doing your own research is important, but none of us is well educated in every subject to do that. We need to depend on experts is the particular field.

As Rumsfeld said "There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know. "

    Managing these three components involve both personal research and dependence on experts.

[ozimoron]

The sheeple get told that critical thinking involves shutting out a segment of the media, disparagingly labeled the "MSM". The result is that they get locked into a confirmation bubble and remain blissfully ignorant of the wider picture. Real critical thinking should entail reading from all sources, "doing your own research" and making up your own mind. Paradoxically, the victims of this propaganda form the opinion that the MSM are engaged in some kind of unspoken conspiracy theory, exactly what the propagandists want.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Propaganda, resides on what you are not being told ,rather than what you are told. Of course what you are told would sound right, it would be stupid if it not, but there is always a But, and the "But" is conveniently left out.

Doing your own research is important, but none of us is well educated in every subject to do that. We need to depend on experts is the particular field.

As Rumsfeld said "There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know. "

    Managing these three components involve both personal research and dependence on experts.

It's clear that this supposed independent research, it really about looking for alleged fact to justify a belief that actual scientific research doesn't support. I note that when an anthropogenic climate change denialist surfaces, it's usually with the same obscure factoid cited by fellow denialist. Despite the huge preponderance of contrary evidence, they manage to dig up this stuff to cite as a fact that supposedly undermines the whole basis of climatological research. Invariably I find that the assertion is downright false, based on outdated research, or misleading.

[LarrySR]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

https://nypost.com/2021/12/08/white-house-working-with-media-to-get-positive-biden-coverage/

You're joking, right? New York Post? LOL

Owned by Rupert Murdoch....

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

https://nypost.com/2021/12/08/white-house-working-with-media-to-get-positive-biden-coverage/

It's widely publicized and about negative press coverage on an economy that's rebounding strongly.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-media-companies-meet-in-secret-with-biden-white-house-to-discuss-more-favorable-economic-coverage/ar-AARzc8K?li=BBnb7Kz

[EVENKEEL]

5 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

You're joking, right? New York Post? LOL

Owned by Rupert Murdoch....

So your claim is it's false? So much for critical thinking.

[LarrySR]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

So your claim is it's false? So much for critical thinking.

Welcome to the right wing propaganda feedback loop. 

You really do need to read that study by Harvard & MIT in the link above 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

So your claim is it's false? So much for critical thinking.

What's correct or false? I linked to an MSN report about it, hardly a secret. It's true that the press are beating up Biden when the economy is doing quite well, contrary to the anti lock down enthusiasts doom and gloom theories. Since when was holding meetings with the media a conspiracy? It's the dead opposite of a conspiracy.

[EVENKEEL]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nothing secret about it. It's widely publicized and about negative press coverage on an economy that's rebounding strongly.

This is your idea of a strong economy,

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

This is your idea of a strong economy,

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

The strength of an economy is more about jobs and GDP than inflation. Economies actually need inflation to remain healthy. Obviously not this much inflation.

 

"President Biden is, so far, handily outscoring most post-war presidents in guiding the US economy."

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/biden-economy-comparison-gdp-growth-scorecard-every-president-since-eisenhower-2021-8

 

https://www.factsarefirst.com/comparison/joe-biden/donald-trump

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What's correct or false? I linked to an MSN report about it, hardly a secret. It's true that the press are beating up Biden when the economy is doing quite well, contrary to the anti lock down enthusiasts doom and gloom theories. Since when was holding meetings with the media a conspiracy? It's the dead opposite of a conspiracy.

Inflation, fuel prices, immigration policy -  biden is losing control fast. 

 

The media couldn't be any softer on biden than they are now. Even CNN knows they have to report some truth.

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Inflation, fuel prices, immigration policy -  biden is losing control fast. 

 

The media couldn't be any softer on biden than they are now. Even CNN knows they have to report some truth.

Biden is getting poor media coverage since the withdrawal from Afghanistan and inflation. The rising inflation rate is more about world wide supply issues than Biden's policies. The fact is that inflation is rising fast world wide. Zoom out and see the wider picture.

[EVENKEEL]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The strength of an economy is more about jobs and GDP than inflation. Economies actually need inflation to remain healthy. Obviously not this much inflation.

 

"President Biden is, so far, handily outscoring most post-war presidents in guiding the US economy."

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/biden-economy-comparison-gdp-growth-scorecard-every-president-since-eisenhower-2021-8

You had to go pretty far to get that quote. Tell the struggling folks that inflation is not a worry, 

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You had to go pretty far to get that quote. Tell the struggling folks that inflation is not a worry, 

Inflation is a worry and the fact that it is a worry world wide demonstrates that it is not a uniquely US problem. Nothing to do with Biden and everything to do with covid.

 

"Key indicators hint the supply-chain crisis is over and inflation will cool off soon"

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/when-will-supply-shortages-end-inflation-cool-shipping-crisis-manufacturers-2021-12?r=US&IR=T

[sirineou]

50 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's clear that this supposed independent research, it really about looking for alleged fact to justify a belief that actual scientific research doesn't support. I note that when an anthropogenic climate change denialist surfaces, it's usually with the same obscure factoid cited by fellow denialist. Despite the huge preponderance of contrary evidence, they manage to dig up this stuff to cite as a fact that supposedly undermines the whole basis of climatological research. Invariably I find that the assertion is downright false, based on outdated research, or misleading.

Yes indeed, What they really mean is confirm you bias

[placeholder]

Just now, sirineou said:

Yes indeed, What they really mean is confirm you bias

And then there are those who claim to be some sort of authority on the subject but whose comments clearly belie those claims. One such person claimed that despite what the virological and epidemiological community ascertained, he know the real reason why MERS and SARS1 disappeared.

Another claimed to be a high level statistical expert earning a very good income despite the fact the they clearly found arithmetic challenging.

And then there's one who claims advanced degrees in statistics who said he could show why a document from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Institute of Public Health, WHO, and some other presitigious institute, was linking to documents that misleadingly showed a connection between vaccination and transmission. This despite the fact that more than 100 studies were listed and all of them showed some at least degree of positive correlation.

This is why I have no use for such claims to special competence or expertise. There's simply no way to check the validity of such claims and the actual comments from such people are such that it's not believable that they possess the qualifications that they claim to have.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so out of touch with the world. Like the BBC and the Guardian, the NY Times is entirely leftist spin. Even the sports pages serve their social engineering agenda. And what is more, their agenda has an emotional rather than a rational basis. This should be transparent enough to any clear-minded individual.

 

Anyone who discredits the idea of consipiracy theories need only consider the existence of political bias in the news media. Or are the conspiracy deniers also saying it also a conspiracy theory to assume that each news organisation has a covert political agenda?

If you are clear minded you will recognise that the above produce some excellent reporting but you can go to a range of sources to get a  complete picture.

The Guardian can have some stories, particularly opinion pieces, that are tediously to the left but they also have good stuff and everything is fact checked. NY Times is less to the left and is fact checked.

The two organisations are also much more likely, than other media, to break meaningful news stories that takes dollars and care to produce.

That's why I admire them and do not think they are based on emotion but are based on a certain concept of morality and fairness that influences the stories that are considered newsworthy.   

At the same time I look to other sources to get a different take on what is happening. 

[ozimoron]

The Hill doesn't get much of a mention but it's also a reliable publication albeit with a slight conservative bias.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The Hill doesn't get much of a mention but it's also a reliable publication albeit with a slight conservative bias.

The Hill has been mostly repackaged articles. Very little independent research or digging going on there. They did have one flagrant case of such journalism. It was John Solomon who made all sorts of false claims based on very dubious sources. He even conspired with the people he was allegedly reporting about. He got canned.

Axel Springer recently bought the original owner out so maybe things will change for the better.

[Catoni]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:15 AM, ozimoron said:

Neither are conspiracies but both are political philosophies.

I see. You are claiming that a political philosophy like Marxist Communism or Fascism/Nazism does not involve conspiracy.  
   Uh huh?  Yeah.  Okay. Sure…….I believe you. ????????

[Catoni]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:48 AM, The Hammer2021 said:

Conspiracy suggests secrecy. A Conspiracy without secret machinations is just policy or planning. This why Conspiracy theory nutters are in a self justifying loop of paranoia

Conspiracy can and does involve secrecy often. But not always. 

Those accusing others of being “Conspiracy theory nutters” try to claim the word conspiracy is synonymous with the word lie. Which it’s not. 
    These people are implying that conspiracies are fables. Conspiracies do not exist. In reality, there is no such thing as conspiracies. 
   Often they are the same people who accused Donald Trump of a Russian collusion conspiracy. 
   Makes you wonder just who the REAL nutters are. 
 

1: the act of conspiring together.   “They were accused of conspiracy to commit murder.

2a: an agreement among conspirators …”We uncovered a conspiracy against the government”

b: a group of conspirators, such as a conspiracy made up of disgruntled aristocrats