|
U-Know! Forum » When you get what you ask for |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
sanshee 1080 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 09:27
|
||
|
A debate today in parliament regarding 'fake news'. No one wants fake news, and my way of avoiding it has always been to turn to the 'main stream media'. The very term, 'main stream media', is used derogatively. Why, I have never known. I will read articles in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Morning Star, The Spectator, Spiked, The Observer, The Times, The Independent, and more. That means I am receiving news from different political slants, but it's still the truth. Yes Corbyn has meetings with Gerry Adams, that is the truth. Some report this as him being a terrorist sympathiser, others as him playing his part in the peace process. It is true they had meetings, and it is up to you to consider why. Crying 'Torygraph' to me is as helpful as crying 'left wing scum'. And yes, at times I am irritated by what I read, but I'm big enough to take it. And there is accountability because there is a real, identifiable source. I don't care to visit echo chambers, I don't need any prejudice I have (for prejudices come in all forms) to be ratified. On our quest to be salved, we kind of bring 'fake news' on ourselves. Rant done;)
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 13:21
|
||
|
It's kinda funny (oh-woah-woah) that conservative commentators are beginning to realise they've played a part in the rise of "fake news", especially with the way that campaigns for Brexit here and Trump in the US were run, reliant on lies, sorry Alternative Facts. And now no-one knows who to believe. Even the Quebec attack last night has had its fair share of misreporting, in both MSM and other channels.
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 13:23
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: A debate today in parliament regarding 'fake news'. No one wants fake news, and my way of avoiding it has always been to turn to the 'main stream media'. The very term, 'main stream media', is used derogatively. Why, I have never known. I will read articles in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Morning Star, The Spectator, Spiked, The Observer, The Times, The Independent, and more. That means I am receiving news from different political slants, but it's still the truth. Yes Corbyn has meetings with Gerry Adams, that is the truth. Some report this as him being a terrorist sympathiser, others as him playing his part in the peace process. It is true they had meetings, and it is up to you to consider why. Crying 'Torygraph' to me is as helpful as crying 'left wing scum'. And yes, at times I am irritated by what I read, but I'm big enough to take it. And there is accountability because there is a real, identifiable source. I don't care to visit echo chambers, I don't need any prejudice I have (for prejudices come in all forms) to be ratified. On our quest to be salved, we kind of bring 'fake news' on ourselves. Rant done;) Why was flyer-dropping once one of wartime's most valuable weapons? Because people, faced with the written word printed on a corporeal object, think it must be true. It's a habit that's drummed into us from the moment we open our first textbook at school. Even if we know for a fact that something is injurious doggerel, there it is in print... Newsstands full of editorials posing as articles are harmful. I avoid them, except maybe to sneak an occasional voyeuristic peak, even though I know I'l only feel despondent straight after. I'm sure, much as you like to imagine yourself gracefully skating around the opinions and straight to the facts, even your thoughts on events are shaped by the form in which they're delivered. The very fact that a certain story is being published at all is a choice. Imagine how someone more credulous must react to news slanted based on their chosen paper's shareholders' predilections? It is something in dire need of debating, as a few rich newspaper owners shouldn't be able to determine world events.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6213 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 13:24
|
||
Plus far more people will always read the front page "big story" than the later, page 17 grudging retraction.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 13:45
|
||
|
I'd sure like to know where the 'Truth' can be found.... My general world view has been shaped by National Geographic magazine{since the 1960's}, Smithsonian magazine,Scientific American magazine, Popular Mechanics/Science magazines,Time magazine, The New Yorker magazine, Encyclopedia Britannica, CBS's 60 minutes and CBS network news,.....thousands of books that i have read..including{get ready for it....}'The Bible'.... I do the best i can. I sure as fuck don't subscribe to anything 'FOX','Murdoch' or as of late in this particular forum : RT news{Russian Television} paraded falsely as a 'Reuters' news link and substantiation for other right-wing expostulations... I don't turn to endless facile Facebook postings for the 'truth' either... The truth is usually what is right in front of us....{away from the monitor} How it get perceived has got a lot to do with one's sense of personal ethics.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 14:08
|
||
|
Our media "works" by relying on anonymous sources who leak information from their government at opportune times. Naturally, the leaks will reflect the biases of the government, the agency within the government that the leaker belongs to, or the leaker him/her self. The journalist will then report the leak. This will provide them the "scoop" that the journalist needs for career advancement. If the journalist doesn't report the leak, then the leaker will find someone else who is more compliant, and that journalist will start to get ostracized. This results in a sycophantic relationship between journalists and government. Udo Ulfkotte, assistant editor for the popular German daily, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book before his death explaining how his staff knowingly repeated whatever the CIA told them. Often, the CIA would write the articles for them, "just add your name here." The few journalists that actually try to do investigative journalism, such as Gary Webb, who exposed the CIA's role in flooding Californian ghettos with crack cocaine in the 80s, or Glenn Greenwald, who helped break the Snowden story, are quickly sidelined. Ever wonder why you can't read Greenwald in the Guardian anymore? On top of all that, there's the corporate angle to contend with, which further restricts what can be written.
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
Jan 30, 2017, 18:33
|
||
Adam Curtis..Oh Dear on Charlie Brooker Screen Wipe.
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
