What is reality? How do you make sure you are not in a bubble? And do you care?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, zzaa09 said:

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

Pentagon Broadcasting System/Corporation or Propaganda Broadcasting Service. 

 

If you say so.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-biased-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8?op=1

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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

Based on comparing it to other obviously much more biased sources.

For examples Fox and OAN are obviously very biased right and MSNBC is obviously very biased left.

CNN is biased left but not nearly as much as MSNBC.

There is no perfect source but PBS Newshour is a very good one.

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Jingthing

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If you say so.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-biased-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8?op=1

Is this going to descend into yet another *Who is better, CNN or Fox" discussion , with all the lefties going in one corner and all the righties going in the other corner and lobbing pelters at each other ?

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

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

Pentagon Broadcasting System/Corporation or Propaganda Broadcasting Service. 

 

Go ahead and fact check the PBS. I'll wait.

[KhaoYai]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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?

I'm particularly interested in the war in Ukraine - although only a fool (or brainwashed Russian)  would believe there is anyone else to blame for that conflict other than Putin. Nevertheless I want to keep up to date with what's going on.  I don't think any news source can be trusted 100% but I place my faith in the BBC but I also tune in to Aljazeera for a potentially different view.

 

The BBC often don't report things that other channels are doing if they haven't verified it - when they do they say its unverified. There is sometimes a little bias on the part of individual reporters but overall I believe the BBC are credibly and factually correct.

 

During 2020, as the Covid Pandemic took hold the BBC went after some of the many conspiracy theorists that came out of the woodwork. They are now regularly accused of being be puppets of 'The Great Reset' etc. etc. and generally slagged of by a minority.  I have yet to find one source of such crticism that had any foundations when checked. Case in point: I stupidy got into an argument with a friend who'd been taken in by the conspiracy theorists and when confronted with BBC reports that debunked his postion - as expected he slagged of the BBC as liars and puppets.  Checking out his claims simply lead to reports about the BBC by other conspiracy theorists without any foundations.

 

I'm happy to trust the BBC for my news. They have their own fact checking procedures and I find that when they do display bias its often understanable if not excuseable - as with the current Ukraine situation.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is this going to descend into yet another *Who is better, CNN or Fox" discussion , with all the lefties going in one corner and all the righties going in the other corner and lobbing pelters at each other ?

Sure.

[G Rex]

I don't believe anything I see or read.

Sometimes I can't believe some of the things I have done...

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Every media source I watch has a way of telling the story that can be looked upon as a bias or being influenced by a preexisting outlook on the world. You can tell the same story in 2 ways that are both objectively correct.

A right wing person, or a person who doesn't trust media, may see PBS as biased, even though it is fully fact checked, because it may have a tone sometimes of being a bit dismissive of, say,  right wing figures or policies or ideas. The PBS person may feel objectively that some right wing or populist person deserves scorn. It may be because the PBS person is educated, has a good knowledge of history, and has standards that say outright lies, and certain other actions  in politics are not acceptable. That person may ask how do you talk about a figure in politics, who seems objectively silly, ridiculous or dangerous, in a way that isn't somewhat dismissive.

 

A different commentator may interpret that leader differently. They may call the lies theatre and judge that such lies are a means to an end, and judge that person on outcomes, such as the state of the economy or figures for immigration etc. They may say the educated person is stymied by their education rather than helped. Held back by a life of too much thought and not enough action. That's not to say only the left is educated. 

 

But facts are facts and the media that fully fact checks and owns up to mistakes gets a big tick. 

PBS, The Age Australia, The Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News in America, CNN in part, all have a way of telling stories that are more likely to be critical of right wing and populist ideology but are fully fact checked. It's good to to check out some right wing media from time to time though , some which is fact checked, some that is so biased as to be deemed entertainment and unwatchable for more than 5 minutes.

 

 

 

[KhunLA]

And here, I'm trying to stay in my bubble ... 

[Adumbration]

"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?"

 

Nothing.  I don't care.

[Lacessit]

3 hours 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! 

It would not surprise me if Ukrainians were giving the Russians a dose of their own medicine. Given what the Russians have done at Mariupol and in Bucha, I'd be inclined to do the same.

 

"Summer is colder than last summer". If I had 1000 baht for every time I have seen posts and Youtube videos where climate deniers cherry pick a single data point against global trends to support their claims, I'd be driving a top of the line BMW. Probably the same on Facebook and Twitter, which I am not on, and have no interest in.

Schiller had it right when he said against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. I don't cancel them, just write them off as dumber than a can of soup.

[Gottfrid]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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

Back to your headline: "What is reality? How do you make sure you are not in a bubble?

That´s easy. If the walls are sticky, then it´s bubble. If not, then I am just in the ordinary unnatural world we call reality.

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

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.

Lincoln Project co-founder and former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt wants the United States to strip Rupert Murdoch of his U.S. citizenship, calling the 91-year-old Australian-born media titan "the most venomous and dangerous foreigner to ever arrive on American soil."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/steve-schmidt-calls-for-venomous-and-dangerous-rupert-murdoch-to-be-stripped-of-us-citizenship/

[Mark Nothing]

I use the creator of heaven and earth as my compass.  Improving on an inborn ability we all have deciphering truth from illusion.

 

Books are of incredible assistance in determining truth. Usually the older, the better. The hijackers of our news stations have been playing the same tricks for centuries. Like the scripted dirty foreigner deception by the health minister to instill xenophobic hatred by design.  Did you think that was by accident?  A 1920 book explained it in detail.  We are being played like a symphony orchestra and most don't even know it.

 

Or reading about the intense debates medical doctors had about the validity of tablets and serums in the 1800's and early 1900s.  And seeing how underlying control and profit incentives played an incredible role in driving the debates and the inevitable ultimate outcome.  And how the media was used to drive the public opinion.  By design.

 

I look at it like a game trying to figure out the angle.  I no longer watch tv, ignoring mainstream tv news.  And the internet news I do view always looking at the possible underlying motivation.  

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

I use the creator of heaven and earth as my compass.  Improving on an inborn ability we all have deciphering truth from illusion.

 

Books are of incredible assistance in determining truth. Usually the older, the better. The hijackers of our news stations have been playing the same tricks for centuries. Like the scripted dirty foreigner deception by the health minister to instill xenophobic hatred by design.  Did you think that was by accident?  A 1920 book explained it in detail.  We are being played like a symphony orchestra and most don't even know it.

 

Or reading about the intense debates medical doctors had about the validity of tablets and serums in the 1800's and early 1900s.  And seeing how underlying control and profit incentives played an incredible role in driving the debates and the inevitable ultimate outcome.  And how the media was used to drive the public opinion.  By design.

 

I look at it like a game trying to figure out the angle.  I no longer watch tv, ignoring mainstream tv news.  And the internet news I do view always looking at the possible underlying motivation.  

Do you mean like a 2,000 year old book actually written 400 years ago?

 

I view truth and lies as absolutes. There can only be one truth about any particular issue.

Edited May 18, 2022 by ozimoron

[Hummin]

19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Do you mean like a 2,000 year old book actually written 400 years ago?

 

I view truth and lies as absolutes. There can only be one truth about any particular issue.

What have really changed the last 2500 years, except from the technology and more percent of the world population  is not physical chained anymore and used as slaves. The slavery have indeed improved for most people. 
 

we or most people have options and possibilities very few had before us, if not borned in to wealth or had some special skills or tremendous social intelligence, most people are free to even sit here and complain about everything and anything except one thing. 
 

edit note two things

Edited May 18, 2022 by Hummin

[fondue zoo]

As soon as we invented pants and covered our privates the truth went out the window.

 

 

[gamb00ler]

9 hours 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. 

The deep fakes have zero impact on the written word.  For me, TV's talking heads detract from the actual news content.  I guess I'm old fashioned because I just read the news.  However, that doesn't protect people from misinformation.  In my experience well written articles are more likely to come from an organized and rational mind.  That's a good starting point.

[1FinickyOne]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

There can only be one truth about any particular issue.

just not so... people see things differently... even eye-witnesses. 

 

I think Woody Allen covered this question... a married couple each talking w/their shrink...

 

Do you have sex frequently?

 

The lady: All the time, maybe 3x a week

 

the guy: Almost never, maybe 3x a week... 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, 1FinickyOne said:

just not so... people see things differently... even eye-witnesses. 

 

I think Woody Allen covered this question... a married couple each talking w/their shrink...

 

Do you have sex frequently?

 

The lady: All the time, maybe 3x a week

 

the guy: Almost never, maybe 3x a week... 

It sounds like they have sex 3x a week.

You kind of disproved your point.

[The Hammer2021]

The nature of reality, like the nature of language predates mass media check out -Rabindranath Tagore and Albert Einstein having a chin wag.

The post modernist view  is that reality is a construct and does not  really exist

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, 1FinickyOne said:

just not so... people see things differently... even eye-witnesses. 

 

I think Woody Allen covered this question... a married couple each talking w/their shrink...

 

Do you have sex frequently?

 

The lady: All the time, maybe 3x a week

 

the guy: Almost never, maybe 3x a week... 

How old they are and how long been married is important information when considering who is right. 

 

Twisted truths used as click baits is the media we have nowadays! 

 

Nobody care about well documented non biased truths anymore

[Grecian]

10 hours 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.

Yes, I'm British and the BBC is now shocking! Maybe it always was.

Diana's death, BBC reported a whole country mourning whereas everyone I knew (skewed sample no doubt but....) Couldn't give a flying fig about it. Covid was hilarious if it wasn't so messed up! Ukraine same!

Pls tell me about the BBC and bangkok riots. I only know you as a poster, but if trust you over the BBC anyday!

[Grecian]

7 minutes ago, Grecian said:

Yes, I'm British and the BBC is now shocking! Maybe it always was.

Diana's death, BBC reported a whole country mourning whereas everyone I knew (skewed sample no doubt but....) Couldn't give a flying fig about it. Covid was hilarious if it wasn't so messed up! Ukraine same!

Pls tell me about the BBC and bangkok riots. I only know you as a poster, but i would trust you over the BBC anyday!

 

[1FinickyOne]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It sounds like they have sex 3x a week.

You kind of disproved your point.

the point being that one perceives that to be a lot and the other too little - the very same thing.. but you know that.. 

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, 1FinickyOne said:

the point being that one perceives that to be a lot and the other too little - the very same thing.. but you know that.. 

That was a more simple example.

In the real world, it can be harder to distinguish between facts, opinions, and lies.

In the modern vernacular "alternative facts" are generally lies. 

 

In that example:

 

Most likely a true fact reflecting reality based on the two participants: Sex 3x a week

Opinions: Cited before

Lie: Martians were in bed with them 

[GammaGlobulin]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That was a more simple example.

In the real world, it can be harder to distinguish between facts, opinions, and lies.

In the modern vernacular "alternative facts" are generally lies. 

 

In that example:

 

Most likely a true fact reflecting reality based on the two participants: Sex 3x a week

Opinions: Cited before

Lie: Martians were in bed with them 

Jingthing....

 

Just a question...

 

Do you know anyone who has been in bed with a Martian?

 

Not sure, but thought you had known of one, or two.

[Jingthing]

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

Jingthing....

 

Just a question...

 

Do you know anyone who has been in bed with a Martian?

 

Not sure, but thought you had known of one, or two.

Perhaps as a hallucination. It's funny how people reporting being abducted by aliens usually report anal probing. 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Perhaps as a hallucination. It's funny how people reporting being abducted by aliens usually report anal probing. 

Yes, truly it is.

 

In fact, this reporting seems to be some sort of deep-down wishful thinking surfacing, in other words...wishful thinking which somehow demonstrates their deep-seated and secret wish to get probed in real life, maybe by their friend or neighbor.

 

OK.

 

In this case, you and I see eye to eye.

 

Take care, my friend.

 

 

[1FinickyOne]

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Jingthing....

 

Just a question...

 

Do you know anyone who has been in bed with a Martian?

 

Not sure, but thought you had known of one, or two.

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That was a more simple example.

In the real world, it can be harder to distinguish between facts, opinions, and lies.

In the modern vernacular "alternative facts" are generally lies. 

 

In that example:

 

Most likely a true fact reflecting reality based on the two participants: Sex 3x a week

Opinions: Cited before

Lie: Martians were in bed with them 

Men are from Mars... not - but microscopic bacteria too small for any know device to detect?