Do you believe that the main stream media is losing its influence?

[Klonko]

I assess the reliability of a media source by looking at articles on subjects where I deem myself to be knowledgeable. I pay subscription fees for two leading newspapers, one more progressive, the other more conservative, providing me with a diverse selection of information and comments. In addition, I glance through media such as Foxnews with their forums to be aware of the conspiracy  fantasies of an unfortunately sizeable movement.

[LarrySR]

Go to the Fox YouTube channel and read the comments if you want to see the the damage they are doing to their viewers/society. 

[StayinThailand2much]

Nowadays, 'main stream media' are irrelevant. - When I was a kid (last century), most people in my country watched the same news show at a certain time in the evening, meaning most citizens had watched this or one other news show, and were 'informed' about the 'important' news that way. (Back then, most households could receive only 3 or 4 TV channels.)

 

Things changed with privatisations and more competition in the 1980s and 1990s. Then came the internet...

 

These days I pick and choose, reading or watching the news on a dozen and more websites from four or five different countries each day, so I like to think that I'm well informed. (I rarely watch TV, and mostly stopped reading newspapers.) I also use select social media for banter, but not for news.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by StayinThailand2much

[ArcticFox]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

A free press is one of the pillars of a healthy democracy. 

It was the Fourth Estate which unfortunately has become the Fifth Column.

 

For those who fail to understand what I wrote, chances are you are consumers of Main-stream News.  That is why you need to seek out information sources outside the what has become the New Pravda.  And study history as well.

[robblok]

1 hour 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. 

Look some things are just too crazy to understand. If someone disregards science and facts what is there to debate about. There should be ground rules for a debate. Besides quite often debate is pointless as nobody will change their view. You see it with religious people, covid conspiracy theorists and the likes. 

 

If you don't set some ground rules like that figures need to come from reputed sites or verifiable data then what can you do. 

[ArcticFox]

59 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

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'. ????

 

 

 

If you really wish to find out who owns the narrative of an American main-stream news outlet, then look no further than who provides their primary revenue.  What are the primary corporate entities purchasing ads on prime-time MSM news outlets? 

What's the commonly accepted narrative pushed by the MSM?
Who's provides the majority of the station's funding through ad revenue?

What I perceive is conflicts of interests:
The Fourth Estate becomes the Fifth Column for a price.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by ArcticFox

[ArcticFox]

[ArcticFox]

Here's a good example of the veracity of high-tech MSM who are considered to be purveyors of the complete truth, like Facebook.

But you have to ask the question:  When "fact-checkers" who don't have the credentials to actually check facts are allow to inject their bias - what chilling effect does that create in journalism?  This is how neo-censorship now works.  The trouble begins when 'fact checkers' start calling out peer reviewed medical journals and claiming their publications are wrong and therefore should be open to censorship.
 

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635 (Published 02 November 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:n2635
"Rapid Response: Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta."

Full article here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

 

"Fact checkers" don't check facts, they manage narratives.  Big difference.
 

Edited December 21, 2021 by ArcticFox

[ColeBOzbourne]

I mostly ignore the news and avoid it all together. I don't find it interesting, and it rarely effects my daily life. Many of the guys I talk to seem to have a daily knot in their underwear because of something in the news that upset them. Unless you just find it interesting, why do some people feel it is imperative to keep up with the news at all?

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, ArcticFox said:

"Fact checkers" don't check facts, they manage narratives.  Big difference.
 

So true ... fact checking is a joke, and anything but.

 

"Facebook finally admitted the truth: The “fact checks” that social media use to police what Americans read and watch are just “opinion.”

https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

Edited December 21, 2021 by KhunLA

[Gsxrnz]

54 minutes ago, robblok said:

Look some things are just too crazy to understand. If someone disregards science and facts what is there to debate about. There should be ground rules for a debate. Besides quite often debate is pointless as nobody will change their view. You see it with religious people, covid conspiracy theorists and the likes. 

 

If you don't set some ground rules like that figures need to come from reputed sites or verifiable data then what can you do. 

I'm generally in agreement.

 

But surely, disregarding orthodox science, facts, and observable reality are the very reason that opinions differ.

 

And if opinions didn't differ mankind would not have progressed beyond or even to the stone age. If the orthodox theory/fact/science of the day was that a stick was a stick, but not a weapon/fuel/building material, or have the potential to be these and many other things, we'd still be living in caves. Just ask Arthur C, Clarke.

 

The worst possible outcome for mankind is that everybody shares the same orthodox opinions.  Universal orthodoxy as described by Ayn Rand in her short dystopian novel Anthem is possibly one of the best written examples of such a world. 

 

The protagonists of this novel do not understand the very concept of the first person pronoun, individual thought, individual opinion, or mankind progressing beyond the current collective orthodoxy in science. Ironically there is no policing by the collective of individuals' thoughts for heresy - the very concept of heresy does not exist.

 

I don't consider myself an ideologue, and I'm certainly at least a standard deviation away from having sufficient IQ points to be considered a philosopher.  But I'm certainly guilty of generally declining to debate with ideologues (of any flavor) or anybody whose ideas regarding life, the universe, and everything are set in stone, preferring instead to discuss concepts and philosophies. 

 

Entering into a debate with somebody who is prepared to give due consideration to opposing views and expects the reciprocal is nowadays a rare and refreshing experience. 

 

I well recall the debating club at my school where you were selected at random to take the affirmative or negative view - our teacher was a something of a Dickensian type and would give us some interesting topics.  One I recall was "The wheel.  A good or a bad thing".  I was on the negative team and we successfully argued that the wheel was in fact a bad thing,  The mind boggles.

 

I will plead guilty to believing in one basic truth (as I see it). The Individual is Sovereign. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

I'm generally in agreement.

 

But surely, disregarding orthodox science, facts, and observable reality are the very reason that opinions differ.

 

And if opinions didn't differ mankind would not have progressed beyond or even to the stone age. If the orthodox theory/fact/science of the day was that a stick was a stick, but not a weapon/fuel/building material, or have the potential to be these and many other things, we'd still be living in caves. Just ask Arthur C, Clarke.

 

The worst possible outcome for mankind is that everybody shares the same orthodox opinions.  Universal orthodoxy as described by Ayn Rand in her short dystopian novel Anthem is possibly one of the best written examples of such a world. 

 

The protagonists of this novel do not understand the very concept of the first person pronoun, individual thought, individual opinion, or mankind progressing beyond the current collective orthodoxy in science. Ironically there is no policing by the collective of individuals' thoughts for heresy - the very concept of heresy does not exist.

 

I don't consider myself an ideologue, and I'm certainly at least a standard deviation away from having sufficient IQ points to be considered a philosopher.  But I'm certainly guilty of generally declining to debate with ideologues (of any flavor) or anybody whose ideas regarding life, the universe, and everything are set in stone, preferring instead to discuss concepts and philosophies. 

 

Entering into a debate with somebody who is prepared to give due consideration to opposing views and expects the reciprocal is nowadays a rare and refreshing experience. 

 

I well recall the debating club at my school where you were selected at random to take the affirmative or negative view - our teacher was a something of a Dickensian type and would give us some interesting topics.  One I recall was "The wheel.  A good or a bad thing".  I was on the negative team and we successfully argued that the wheel was in fact a bad thing,  The mind boggles.

 

I will plead guilty to believing in one basic truth (as I see it). The Individual is Sovereign. 

Of course theories are not set in stone once in a while we have guy like Copernicus who changes it all. But these people are rare and far between. But guys like that let their theory be proven by others and then science will come to a consensus. That is how it works a new theory is launched, scientists in the field test it and if proven true we progress.

 

Its not about taking numbers out of context and basing an opinion on things that are not verified and are seen as misleading and false. But its indeed hard to say what is what, but if one says that vaccines don't help, then prove it. Not with for instance look there are now more infections then before and they were vaccinated. Instead of looking at the people dying in hospitals and taking into account how many of each group there are (vaccinated vs not vaccinated).

 

These are basic principles if you have an opinion or thesis you make sure your building blocks are sound if these are not because your just basing stuff on half truths without taking other stuff in account then its just misleading.

 

But if there is good research done and you can really prove it then by all means debate that is how get on. But we don't get any further when a group is sprouting non sense with unverified data and absurd claims. To think that an dance teacher knows more about how a virus works then a guy who studied to be a virologist is just stupid. But that is what is happening in my country.

 

 

[RichardColeman]

You wanna try watching RT english speaking news for an anti Russian story or a pro western one.

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is how it works a new theory is launched, scientists in the field test it and if proven true we progress.

That's completely untrue,

With any major new ideas the established scientists reject it out of hand and make sure the discoverer never publishes or works again. After the original scientist has been 'burnt at the stake' and the naysayers are all dead from old age, some consideration may be given to his theory.

Edited December 21, 2021 by BritManToo

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, ArcticFox said:

If you really wish to find out who owns the narrative of an American main-stream news outlet, then look no further than who provides their primary revenue.  What are the primary corporate entities purchasing ads on prime-time MSM news outlets? 

What's the commonly accepted narrative pushed by the MSM?
Who's provides the majority of the station's funding through ad revenue?

What I perceive is conflicts of interests:
The Fourth Estate becomes the Fifth Column for a price.

 

Every news outlet--MSM, right wing, left wing....every single one--is funded by somebody.  So your argument makes no sense.  Unless you're talking about some faceless troll sitting behind a keyboard making up sht.  Yeah, that's your idea of "objective news." 

[scubascuba3]

Mainstream TV is dying so their influence is dwindling as are newspapers so yes it's all going to social media, YouTube, Facebook, forums. I'll guess we'll get more and more fake news and conspiracy theories, less fact checking going on before stories get circulated. Proper journalism is also going down the toilet so we'll be left with not a lot

 

[BangkokReady]

Cast your eye over both left leaning and right leaning news sources.  Don't take it too seriously as news is mainly for entertainment.  Don't make any comments unless anonymous.

 

Best thing you can do is to learn the difference between news and propaganda and between fact and opinion.

 

If you want to see how biased the MSM is, just take a look at the coverage of the BLM riots vs. the coverage of the Jan 6th "insurrection".

[Berkshire]

20 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If you want to see how biased the MSM is, just take a look at the coverage of the BLM riots vs. the coverage of the Jan 6th "insurrection".

Hmmm.....the BLM protests were about racial injustice and Jan 6 was about trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power between administrations.  Both got out-of-hand, but the latter had much more sinister motives. 

[LarrySR]

39 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Cast your eye over both left leaning and right leaning news sources.  Don't take it too seriously as news is mainly for entertainment.  Don't make any comments unless anonymous.

 

Best thing you can do is to learn the difference between news and propaganda and between fact and opinion.

 

If you want to see how biased the MSM is, just take a look at the coverage of the BLM riots vs. the coverage of the Jan 6th "insurrection".

Legitimate reporting one will not see on Fox.

FBI & DHS crime report states, Far-right extremist terrorism has quadrupled since 2017.

The right wing extremist movement born on social media, Bugaloo Boys, Proud Boys & White Supremacists are working to spark violence at largely peaceful protests across the nation. 

"Painting BLM and Antifa as violent groups is seen as a political advantage for Trump."

 

Federal prosecutors have charged various supporters of the right-wing movement with crimes related to plotting to firebomb, preparing to use explosives at peaceful demonstrations, killing a security officer at a federal courthouse and shooting up a police station while acting as provocateurs at BLM protests.

Three men in Nevada are accused of planning to use molotov cocktails and other explosives to trigger a violent reaction among BLM protesters gathered in Las Vegas. An FBI SWAT team arrested the right wing provocateurs with fireworks, accelerants, an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition, according to charging documents. The men also were charged with crimes related to planning the firebombing of a Forest Service facility.

 

The numbers are overwhelming: Most of the violence is coming from the extreme right wing advocates of the boogaloo ideology," according to the charging documents, with a goal of causing “an incident to incite chaos and possibly a riot” among the largely peaceful protests, said Clint Watts, FBI agent who studies extremist political activity.

 

Right wing news outlets have been spreading misinformation, telling viewers the January 6 insurrection was triggered by Anti-Fa but so far, nearly 700 arrests have been made and none are connected to the AntiFa movement.

 

According to FBI Chief, Christopher Wray, Right Wing terrorism outweighs all other forms of terrorism in the USA. He firmly rejected false claims advanced by some Republicans that anti-Trump groups had organized the deadly January 6 riot that began when a violent mob stormed the building as Congress was gathering to certify results of the presidential election.

Edited December 21, 2021 by LarrySR

[BangkokReady]

11 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

the BLM protests were about racial injustice

The BLM riots and associated looting had nothing to do with racial justice.

[LarrySR]

59 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

The BLM riots and associated looting had nothing to do with racial justice.

According to right wing media sources. A black football player taking a knee to protest police brutality is “unAmerican, should lose his job and be deported” …..but a white guy dressed in tactical gear carrying a pitchfork, mace  or baseball bat crashing thru a window at the USA Capitol beating up cops and looking to hang the Vice President is a patriot. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by LarrySR

[BangkokReady]

29 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

According to right wing media sources. A black football player taking a knee to protest police brutality in unAmerican, should lose his job and be deported …..but a white guy dressed in tactical gear carrying a pitchfork, mace  or baseball bat crashing thru a window at the USA Capitol beating up cops and looking to hang the Vice President is a patriot. 

I'm not sure what this somewhat rambly paragraph has to do with the MSM hiding the BLM riots while pretending that a group of crazies roaming into a building was an attempted coup.

[TheScience]

I never read the rubbish. So, yes.

[TheScience]

1 hour ago, LarrySR said:

Legitimate reporting one will not see on Fox.

Yes, must trust to CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wapo, Guardian 555

 

It's all entertainment for the plebs, tools and sheep

[TheScience]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

If you don't set some ground rules like that figures need to come from reputed sites or verifiable data then what can you do. 

Get to the truth?

[ozimoron]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

So true ... fact checking is a joke, and anything but.

 

"Facebook finally admitted the truth: The “fact checks” that social media use to police what Americans read and watch are just “opinion.”

https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

What you have here is an extremist right wing publication attacking fact checkers because they threaten its reputation and readership. They are acting out of pure self interest, nothing to do with the truth. Facebook is hardly an authority on fact checkers either.

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I'm not sure what this somewhat rambly paragraph has to do with the MSM hiding the BLM riots while pretending that a group of crazies roaming into a building was an attempted coup.

We'll soon see that the supposed random and coincidental acts of a group of crazies were in fact organised by other crazies.

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

We'll soon see that the supposed random and coincidental acts of a group of crazies were in fact organised by other crazies.

What did they even do, pose for selfies?  Throw a few papers around?

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

What did they even do, pose for selfies?  Throw a few papers around?

Is that really what you believe is all they did? You definitely need to read some MSM. One of those people just got 41 months in the monkey house for posing for those selfies.

Edited December 21, 2021 by ozimoron

[BangkokReady]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

One of those people just got 41 months in the monkey house for posing for those selfies.

What were the offenses?  Didn't the guy with the spear get two years or something for not hurting anyone or breaking a thing?