In recent times it has become clear to many people that the "Main stream media" does not provide an objective representation of facts and applies censorship on a large scale. Do you still take it for granted or do more research yourself before forming an opinion?

Who do you define as 'main stream media' ?

Shutting down misinformation is not censorship.

"doing your own research", until you find a conspiracy nut job who you agree with, isn't research, its justifying misinformation.

If main stream media doesn't give objective representation to nut job conspiracy misinformation, that's actually a good thing.

With increase polarization, the mainstream will continue to provide a place of bias confirmation for the client set it caters to.

IMO it's influence will continue to diminish as the more radical segments will look to other sources to confirm their political bias, and in an attempt to remain relevant and economically viable it will move further to the right or to the left. 

7 minutes ago, tonray said:

Who do you define as 'main stream media' ?

I get the feeling its anyone who doesn't do conspiracy theories.

Why do your own research when Alex Jones and Steve Bannon can do it for you?

 

Paul Laew

43 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

In recent times it has become clear to many people that the "Main stream media" does not provide an objective representation of facts and applies censorship on a large scale. Do you still take it for granted or do more research yourself before forming an opinion?

The censorship of MSM is mainly done by your governments security forces.

There are no sources of information they don't/can't edit.

 

The internet is a great resource for cooking recipes, but it isn't a source for politically sensitive information.

Edited December 21, 20214 yr by BritManToo

31 minutes ago, tonray said:

Who do you define as 'main stream media' ?

Any source the government feels important enough to censor.

I only lost its influence on those who are not happy and are looking for facts (lies and misinformation) to support their opinion. For those it lost its influence. This group is growing as nobody likes the current situation. Many are easily influenced. I had a Brit friend say covid and all was linked to the wish to depoplate the planet and to take away rights from the poor. But the sits used were all full of easily to spot lies. 

 

So yes its losing influence as people don't like the truth that is based on real facts and are looking for something even if its a lie to support what they think. Kinda like religious people klinging to a religion even though there is not a shred of proof and because there are many of them they feel validated.

 

So yes its losing influence because many rather live in an alternate reality that conforms with their ideas.

2 hours ago, peter zwart said:

In recent times it has become clear to many people that the "Main stream media" does not provide an objective representation of facts and applies censorship on a large scale. Do you still take it for granted or do more research yourself before forming an opinion?

Where do you get your news?

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

I get the feeling its anyone who doesn't do conspiracy theories.

And that would leave out Fox News especially with Chris Wallace's departure.  "Main Stream Media" might have some bias on what they report - how much air-time or print space they devote to some topics/events but not others.  But I don't think that organizations like the NY Times or WaPo have a political objective.  Contrast this with Fox News, News Max, OAN which clearly is all in for the right-wing, often going to great lengths to defend the GOP against negative stories and inventing or perpetuating/amplifying stories that are unfavorable to non-GOP or favorable to GOP.  I'm thinking "The Big Lie" here and the events of Jan 6.  It's no accident that a significant part of the US population thinks that it was a false-flag operation, carried out by BLM and Antifa, or was a hugfest.  That's the result of propaganda.

I humbly suggest that before a conversation can be had about what is true, then the very word "truth" needs to be clearly defined.

 

Good luck with that.  

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

I humbly suggest that before a conversation can be had about what is true, then the very word "truth" needs to be clearly defined.

 

Good luck with that.  

Truth=Fact.....or facts as we best know them at the time.  Like the 2020 election.  Trump keeps spouting endless lies.  So when the MSM reports what he says, they have to include a disclaimer that Trump is lying or has zero evidence.  Right wing nutters aren't too fond of that.   

2 hours ago, peter zwart said:

In recent times it has become clear to many people that the "Main stream media" does not provide an objective representation of facts

It seems by now facebook is main stream media - at least for a lot of people.

I agree that they seldom provide objective facts.

I only trust experts who are known to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Sure some mainstream media is more left or right but most people know that. I am more talking about the outlandish other sites that often have false information on them. I doubt that the media in my country all toe the line to write what the government wants. 

 

Because that is basically what many of those alternate theory believers think. I have seen too many critical reports and programs made by them where they basically attack the government on things. So to think that they would all suddenly side with the government to push a world wide agenda and stuff like that is just to crazy to believe. Still some seem to fall for it.

 

Will there be some sites that expose stuff that the media misses, sure there are as not everything can get their attention but on the big important things they are often right. They might be a bit bias at times but not to the extend many people think. There is always some article showing the other side. 

 

Yesterday i read about a doctor in an big hospital who said that lockdown might be asking too much from the people who are less at risk to protect those who are most at risk. He also questioned why he had to postpone operations on cancer patients so he could keep beds ready for covid patients. He said the cancer patient had a better chance to survive then some of those covid patients so in his opinion the covid patient should have been given up (left to die) to make room for the guy with cancer who had more chance to survive.

 

In his word you can die of anything as long as its not covid and he found that wrong. 

 

So even our mainstream media gives others a space to give their opinion. Of course it does not go to the really outlandish theories and opinions but that is not so strange. It also often attacks the government on its decisions about lockdown and how it hits restaurants and so on. So to think they all toe the government line is crazy.

 

In the UK (im Dutch but this news even reaches Dutch papers) now there is BJ scandal of him going to parties and stuff. Things he denied until pictures showed up. Showing there was one rule for the ones in power and an other for the population. If that is not giving a voice to opposition what is.

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I only trust experts who are known to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Yep god the guy is bad, like a mini Trump. News about him even hits the Dutch papers. 

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Truth=Fact.....or facts as we best know them at the time.  Like the 2020 election.  Trump keeps spouting endless lies.  So when the MSM reports what he says, they have to include a disclaimer that Trump is lying or has zero evidence.  Right wing nutters aren't too fond of that.   

I've found that those who are unable to successfully argue their ideological opponents point of view probably don't understand or don't want to understand their adversaries point of view and generally revert to name calling.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

The censorship of MSM is mainly done by your governments security forces.

There are no sources of information they don't/can't edit.

 

The internet is a great resource for cooking recipes, but it isn't a source for politically sensitive information.

That's just paranoia.  Sure China censors.  And Russia.  But are you saying the west?  Heck, when Trump was President, he tried to control/influence the media but just couldn't.  Which is a good thing.  A free press is one of the pillars of a healthy democracy. 

I read the mainstream media. I like to think I can think and call stuff out if it is too biased. Some stuff a bit left and stuff a bit right. Those media that have a record of fact checking. 

Some stuff is called 'left' when to me it is just fair and reasonable e.g. it might be seen as anti right wing politicians but not just because of politics or economics but the illogical and sometimes anti democratic stands they take. Left politicians can be illogical too of course. 

It is interesting to read new perspectives but the less fact checking the less seriously they are taken. 

4 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

I've found that those who are unable to successfully argue their ideological opponents point of view probably don't understand or don't want to understand their adversaries point of view and generally revert to name calling.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. 

Taking it personal?  Tell me what your "point of view" is and I'll happily discuss.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Any source the government feels important enough to censor.

any example of democratic and fairly elected government censored media will support your assertion otherwise its a lie.

Edited December 21, 20214 yr by ozimoron

Quote

Do you still take it for granted or do more research yourself before forming an opinion?

The premise is flawed. MSM is called that because most people trust it. It isn't a matter of believing. Most critical thinkers do their own research and fact check as well as read the MSM. The MSM withstands these tests and is therefore widely trusted. The fringe conspiracy theories mostly fail these tests and so remain fertile fund raisers preying on the feeble minded.

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Taking it personal?  Tell me what your "point of view" is and I'll happily discuss.

I don't take things personally - my personality is as deep as a shallow puddle so am somewhat difficult to offend.  It's a curse.  

Quality journalism is alive and well. 

Every year, the Schools Of Journalism turn out thousands of dedicated, honest, hard working graduates that enter the field, producing quality product that adheres to journalistic standards. 

Of course the scammers, con artists and pathological liars will try to convince the rubes that the “press is the enemy of the people.”

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Any source the government feels important enough to censor.

Utter nonsense. 
Hey, aren’t you the self admitted moon landing denier from the other thread?

Edited December 21, 20214 yr by LarrySR

4 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Utter nonsense from a self admitted moon landing denier. 

Is that you Jeffr2?

Yes it's obviously losing it's influence. That's one of the few things most everyone can agree with.

How intelligent people can believe anything in MSM is mind boggling.  Nothing but fear monging for their agenda.  Prime example:  "The Omicron strain of the coronavirus now accounts for more than 73% of new US cases of Covid-19, up from 13% just a week ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported."  .... now in the 'echo box' of MSM.

 

Does anyone seriously believe, in a matter of weeks, this is actually true.  But you'll all be lining up for your booster, and they'll make billions more.  Even though you already have that 'safe & effective' vaccine, first shot, now 2 or 3 shots, and line up for another, to counter the variant that you were already told, 'was mild'. ????

 

 

 

I stopped watching MSM news about 15 years ago when it became evident that it was no longer Huntley and Brinkley or Walter Cronkite providing the news in a plain matter-of-fact manner.  By 15 years ago it became evident that the MSM was News-A-Tainment.  Here in 2021 it is either a Left or Right Echo-Chamber.
I continued to read The Nation and BKK post until I could find the newspapers for sale.  I like to sit down at a cafe with a beer or coffee and read the rag although I understand the MSM perspective.  Then the printed papers disappeared.  Reading on the smartphone just ain't the same.

So I'm pretty much done with MSM and new get my information for places like Substack where journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and other investigative journalist - who still have journalistic integrity - continue to write.  I find that these left-wing, liberal journalist who refuse to publish for the Borg Hive-mind tend to have a balanced, almost centrist worldview.