A long time ago we had maybe 3 TV channels and a few newspapers. And most of the time they reported more or less the same. Everybody had the same view of reality (as it was told by the few news sources).

 

Now, with hundreds of TV channels, YouTube videos, social media, and and and there is more information. But also a lot more distorted information.

A typical example is CNN or FOX. And with YouTube and social media there is no such thing as the same information for all of us. If I open YouTube maybe I see something completely different than maybe an old feminist or a teenager.

 

Some sources are well known for incorrect information. We can avoid them or at least don't believe everything they say. Other sources don't really lie, but they often omit information and/or don't tell the whole truth.

 

To make this tread not political lets use a nonpolitical example. The ongoing court case with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. If I look at my YouTube frontpage I see often videos which show how she lies. I.e. she pledged to donate money to children but she didn't do it. When I look at articles in a well know newspaper/online source then I only see articles that she claims he hit her. Nothing in those articles suggest that maybe she did anything wrong. And I am sure if another person, maybe a feminist, looks at her YouTube page, she would see all those videos about how bad he is. So what is the truth?

 

What do you do to get an idea what is really happening in Thailand, maybe in your home country, Ukraine, the rest of the world? Do you only read news from sources which you know write according to your believes? Do you try to look at neutral news? Do you even spend time reading the news from those other guys who always lie?

 

Personally I think it is more and more difficult to determine the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

How about you?

Agree, we are bombarded in many directions.

Personally I tend to look at say three sources, then draw my own conclusion based on what I feel is a reliable source. That then may be colored later by additional info or commentary etc from family/ friends/colleagues.

 

Social media is awash with all types of manipulated paid for narratives and one should be very careful what you choose to believe in my opinion.

I don't believe anything any more. There is too much money behind misinformation on all sides. Rupert Murdoch has monetized lies and benefits too much from division.

 

The three things that killed truth in media:

1. Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine

2. Bill Clinton paved the way for media monopolies

3. Technology can now create stuff like this:

 

4 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I don't believe anything any more. There is too much money behind misinformation on all sides. Rupert Murdoch has monetized lies and benefits too much from division.

 

The three things that killed truth in media:

1. Reagan killed The Fairness Doctrine

2. Bill Clinton paved the way for media monopolies

3. Technology can now create stuff like this:

 

I think this was created using a GAN based AI system. Once this type of tech existed and was perfected for sound and video I don't see how anything online can be trusted. 

4 minutes ago, Sqoop said:

I think this was created using a GAN based AI system. Once this type of tech existed and was perfected for sound and video I don't see how anything online can be trusted. 

So what do you do to be informed?

Only believe what you see with your own eyes in the real world?

Trust your friends? And where did they get their new from?

What can we still believe?

4 minutes ago, Sqoop said:

I think this was created using a GAN based AI system. Once this type of tech existed and was perfected for sound and video I don't see how anything online can be trusted. 

Quite simple, choose a publicly funded news outlet back by a regulatory mandate to be unbiased and provide balanced content.

22 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The ongoing court case with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Yikes.

 

You're concerned about dueling publicists, and their armada of web warriors, fueling an entertainment story? Wow, not hard to figure which pill you took.

 

 

22 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Personally I think it is more and more difficult to determine the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

How about you?

No, not at all. Just takes a bit of work though.

 

 

Often the "truth" doesn't come out for decades, so in addition to a bit of intelligence you also need some patience.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by mtls2005

Cherrypicking news and find the middle standpoint. 
 

When it comes to Amber and Jonny it fits my view pretty much. There is no fire without smoke, and they are both crazy. However Johnnny is a bit more likable in my eyes, but is he as innocent as I would like to think? Nope, 
 

And you see how social media feeding you at once you click on a video who favorites Johhny for an example, your feed will be over flooded by only video’s favoring Johnny. Thats how we get blinded in the long run. 
 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by Hummin

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So what do you do to be informed?

Only believe what you see with your own eyes in the real world?

Trust your friends? And where did they get their new from?

What can we still believe?

Much the same as you I would guess. Try to choose a range of independent trusted sources and try to gauge bias. 

 

I think that generally we are headed for a dystopian future. 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by Sqoop

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Quite simple, choose a publicly funded news outlet back by a regulatory mandate to be unbiased and provide balanced content.

Like the BBC or what do you have in mind?

I trusted BBC news for a long time. And then I saw the BS which they reported about the 2010 protests in Bangkok (which I could see in real every day). Now I don't trust the BBC anymore.

It might be that they tell the truth most of the time. But how can I/we know that? At least sometimes they definitely don't report the truth. And at least for me that is a reason not to trust them.

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Yikes.

 

You're concerned about dueling publicists, and their armada of web warriors, fueling an entertainment story? Wow, not hard to figure which pill you took.

 

No, not at all. Just takes a bit of work though.

 

Often the "truth" doesn't come out for decades, so in addition to a bit of intelligence you also need some patience.

Do you prefer to discuss the truth about Trump and Biden? Or maybe the truth about the new president of the Philippines? The above is just an example. But it is a prominent example and one which people can discuss without fighting about politics. An intelligent person like you should understand that.

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Like the BBC or what do you have in mind?

I trusted BBC news for a long time. And then I saw the BS which they reported about the 2010 protests in Bangkok (which I could see in real every day). Now I don't trust the BBC anymore.

It might be that they tell the truth most of the time. But how can I/we know that? At least sometimes they definitely don't report the truth. And at least for me that is a reason not to trust them.

I think the BBC will crash and burn when the license fee is taken away. When they have to compete in an open market with real streaming services. They are very left leaning and woke. The nonsense that they currently put out, like Dr Who, reflects this. 

First you have to define truth. Truth is not truth, as defined by Rambling Rudy. Truth is one of the most manipulated things in the universe. There are countless forces that want truth to be suppressed, at every turn. Real truth? It does exist, but how to find a source without an agenda? Even many publicly funded sources, which are likely to be more truthful, have an agenda. So, the wise approach is to choose several sources, then compare the information, or read everything assuming it might be fake, or at the very least colored, and biased. 

 

I think most media is biased. And nearly everything we see on social media is fake or highly colored. I consider most social media to also be highly toxic, and corrosive for society. 

 

Recently my sister in law went through a divorce. In the time leading up to the divorce, she was incessantly posting stuff on facebook, about his infidelities, and other indiscretions. I kept asking my wife, why would she do that? Why does she want everyone to know, and to see a tragic event in her private life? But, she had lost all of her ability to discriminate, and make that kind of decision, due to a life of obsessive posting online. She lost all of her perspective, and those posts are a permanent record. That stuff is public. It is out there, and it exacerbates humiliation, for those who do not think things through. 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by spidermike007

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The above is just an example. But it is a prominent example and one which people can discuss without fighting about politics.

Yes, a silly example. Two actors fighting. Who actually cares?

 

 

OK, maybe me...all I care about is Aquaman 2. And where can I read more about Amber and elon?

 

The poor DCEU, Ezra Miller behaving badly, now Aquaman 2 in trouble. 

 

The Axe of Zaslav still has heads to chop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's important not to confuse news with analysis. I remember when news was purely that - someone told us what had happened that day, usually with pictorial or video assistance, but they didn't then try to propaganda-ise it by taking one side or another, and 'explaining' why it had happened.  Now news is politicised, and often under the control of a single corporation, if not person, with an agenda.  Taking multiple sources, apportioning more belief to those with scientific reasoning and evidence (hence the push to demonise science by the pedlars of false news) and a proven track record over time, and making your own conclusions based on all available channels, will more likely lead to correct self analysis than simply believing in what your favourite one tells you to conclude.  You should also seriously consider the likelihood of a single guy on Twitter knowing the deepest secrets and "facts" about some topic that is totally outside his experience and knowledge, and treat what he is saying accordingly.

And, Amber Heard and Jonny Depp arguing is not news.

Usually I find I can trust what's reported by taxpayer-funded media in a democracy. The fact politicians are always trying to neuter or defund such media is a reasonable guide to its credibility, and theirs. The ABC in Australia is hated by politicians, because it fact checks many of the claims they make, with frequently embarrassing results. Here's an example:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-18/fact-check-michael-sukkar-first-home-buyers/101074546

 

As for commercial media, there are two gods. Circulation numbers, and advertising.

 

Guys like Murdoch get circulation by pandering to the lowest common denominator of society. It's probably unknown now for a motoring journalist employed by commercial media to give an honest review of any new vehicle, for fear of losing their jobs when the car advertiser cancels the revenue stream.

 

Social media is a wasteland. Apart from China and Russia subverting it to spread disinformation, it's a picnic ground for climate deniers, antivaxxers, Putin supporters and flat earthers to find support of their confirmation biases.

 

I could go on Facebook armed with a desk, teleprompter, shelf of books, and a serious expression, and spout the most arrant nonsense to an army of listeners who were behind the door when intelligence was handed out. Trump weaponised Twitter to do the same.

 

Who do I trust? Mostly myself.

 

 

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Yes, a silly example. Two actors fighting. Who actually cares?

 

 

OK, maybe me...all I care about is Aquaman 2. And where can I read more about Amber and elon?

 

The poor DCEU, Ezra Miller behaving badly, now Aquaman 2 in trouble. 

 

The Axe of Zaslav still has heads to chop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amber and Johnny is a great example of what people read and follow, and how people who do not know the facts take one side and defend them as they know the truth. Ordinary people, and the same goes for everything that is broadcasted in newschannels, people do not know <deleted>, but still claim they know based on biased journalists and newschannels. 
 

Before the news was about the country best, and leading people to make the best decisions necessary for the kingdoms best, or the nation best. Now all kind of deleted deleted confuse and manipulate larger part of the population, and you have managed to divert the country in to crisis we se now.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Social media is a wasteland. Apart from China and Russia subverting it to spread disinformation, it's a picnic ground for climate deniers, antivaxxers, Putin supporters and flat earthers to find support of their confirmation biases.

In principle yes.

 

But lets imagine for a minute that Ukrainian people or maybe mercenaries would torture and kill Russian soldiers. Would anybody report that? And if the Russian media would report it would anybody believe it?

 

Or climate change: Writing or showing something which shows how bad the situation is is easy. Everybody wants to publish it and sure, those are the good guys. But what about if someone publishes a critical aspect about climate change. I.e. maybe this summer is colder than last summer and maybe even colder than a summer 20 years ago. It seem if anybody dares to write and/or publish such an article lots of people say right away: That is a climate denier. Cancel him! 

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

and how people who do not know the facts take one side and defend them as they know the truth.

I defend men, women always lie.

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by BritManToo

3 hours ago, Sqoop said:

Try to choose a range of independent trusted sources ............. 

There are none.

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

In principle yes.

 

But lets imagine for a minute that Ukrainian people or maybe mercenaries would torture and kill Russian soldiers. Would anybody report that? And if the Russian media would report it would anybody believe it?

 

Or climate change: Writing or showing something which shows how bad the situation is is easy. Everybody wants to publish it and sure, those are the good guys. But what about if someone publishes a critical aspect about climate change. I.e. maybe this summer is colder than last summer and maybe even colder than a summer 20 years ago. It seem if anybody dares to write and/or publish such an article lots of people say right away: That is a climate denier. Cancel him! 

Before the war, BBC had a few documentaries about the growing Nazi army Azov regiments in Ukraine, now you can not mention it. It was also constantly reported as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, but really doesn't make up for Russia's action against Ukraine. 

 

Both parts make war crimes no doubt about it, but again to be fair, media need to be used in favor of our countries best and the allies best.

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by Hummin

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I defend men, women always lie.

I know you now, and your stand against women based on your life story and experiences.

 

I would say we all lie, some more than others

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I know you now, and your stand against women based on your life story and experiences.

I would say we all lie, some more than others

I've never accused anyone of beating, abusing or raping me.

Many women make that sort of accusation all the time to anyone that will listen.

Whenever I get that old story I just say, "How long did he spend in jail"

 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by BritManToo

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I know you now, and your stand against women based on your life story and experiences.

 

I would say we all lie, some more than others

Many of us always tell the truth , I would say that most people are honest and always tell the truth and that just a few lie .

   Saying that *Men always tell the truth and Woman always lie* is infact untrue in itself 

I recommend PBS News Hour on youtube. The most objective reality based US tv news source I know. Of course many will find that approach boring.

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Quite simple, choose a publicly funded news outlet back by a regulatory mandate to be unbiased and provide balanced content.

Yes, and, possibly, get informed by a variety of news sources, from different countries, political views, and backgrounds. I still trust publicly funded news outlets a bit more than other ones, but I often "double-check", using other sources. There's nothing wrong with watching CNN and Fox News, or getting financial 'news' from the Wall Street Journal and Asean Now...

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by StayinThailand2much

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I recommend PBS News Hour on youtube. The most objective reality based US tv news source I know. Of course many will find that approach boring.

....and there's a reason why some jovial circles refer to your beloved PBS as: 

Pentagon Broadcasting System/Corporation or Propaganda Broadcasting Service. 

 

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I've never accused anyone of beating, abusing or raping me.

Many women make that sort of accusation all the time to anyone that will listen.

Whenever I get that old story I just say, "How long did he spend in jail"

 

Most or many women do not tell they are raped or their husband beats them, they live with it and stay in it, and unfortunate some woman have no shame, and use it as a weapon wrongly, and make it harder for those who are abused to be believed. 
 

if you said the opposite same as me, I could easily said some woman wrongly use it as a weapon and make false claims against some men. It is not just black and white

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I recommend PBS News Hour on youtube. The most objective reality based US tv news source I know. Of course many will find that approach boring.

How do you know that it is "The most objective reality based US tv news source"?