Fake News

[TheReal_ND]

It's almost like state controlled media constructs narratives in order to low key MKULTRA NPC's into becoming docile consumers of their globo homo child sacrificing and consuming religion. Seek Jesus.

[BjornP]

My favorite goto site for how the diametrically opposite side discusses the same political topics is Slate. Dunno if it's really the most extreme of the progressive online news commentary sites, but I was just checking the Nasty Racist Trump-loving Catholic schoolkids vs Venerable Elder Vietnam Vet with tear streaking down his chin-story and how it's being reported there now.

Contrast:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... video.html

with another article, referenced in the same Slate article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... st/580897/

You may not share my sense of humor, so you might not be laughing at the end of the Slate article, but there's a degree of desperate guilt by association and general intellectual contortionism to it, I think several of you might actually enjoy. The Atlantic article reference is a journalist being honest about their failure, so it might make some of you more optimistic just for that.

[Hastur]

Biased journalism isn't a new thing.



I don't know if all journalism has always been biased or if there ever was a time when pride was taken in trying to get to an unbiased truth. That is the legend we've been fed by the fictional portrayal of the media. The fact that current media is under such pressure from alternative news sources might be a reason for their panicky behaviour and the lack of resources put towards fact checking and editing.

I've heard that US TV networks used to view news as a necessary item they had to have even if it made a loss but that it changed along the way somewhere. I believe it had to do with removing the FCC fairness doctrine.

I notice that trends in US media always come over here but with a couple of years delay. I wonder if that will be true with this total meltdown we see now as well. The fact that it's not reported as a meltdown by our current media suggests it will.

[Fife]

Marat was one hell of a meme for the Jacobins.

We can take note that Lincoln and the Republicans did not allow for such romanticizing of the murdered press during the Invasion.

[Martin Hash]

Propaganda works... Bigtime. Propaganda can make masses of people believe someone rose from the dead or rode a flying horse. It doesn't make any difference if the idea is completely illogical or refuted by facts, keep saying that the aliens are coming to take you when you drink the poison Koolaid, and everybody will drink the Koolaid.

Marxists didn't go anywhere when the Soviet Union fell, they just became more emboldened. People fervently BELIEVE in Marxism which is why the governments of the Western powers were so successfully filled with spies during WWII. Marxists are everywhere: the Women's movement is Marxist, BLM is Marxist, Identity Politics is Marxist, the UN is Marxist, etc. These people collude to make the world Marxist, and they own the media. For Marxism to prevail, The Patriarchy must be defeated, therefore, they must convince people a man can ride a flying horse.

[BjornP]

Biased journalism isn't a new thing.

I don't know if all journalism has always been biased or if there ever was a time when pride was taken in trying to get to an unbiased truth. That is the legend we've been fed by the fictional portrayal of the media. The fact that current media is under such pressure from alternative news sources might be a reason for their panicky behaviour and the lack of resources put towards fact checking and editing.

I've heard that US TV networks used to view news as a necessary item they had to have even if it made a loss but that it changed along the way somewhere. I believe it had to do with removing the FCC fairness doctrine.

I notice that trends in US media always come over here but with a couple of years delay. I wonder if that will be true with this total meltdown we see now as well. The fact that it's not reported as a meltdown by our current media suggests it will.

Yeah, I don't know the extent to which journalists idealize journalism's past, but it didn't start out as objective truth-seeking, certainly. I've read a fair lot of old local and regional (North Jutland) newspapers when I worked at a historical archive, the oldest going back to mid 19th cent. The further you moved away from local news, the more sensationalist and sometimes stereotype-confirming news tends to get. Usually it was, as now, news gotten from some second-hand source, because those small local and regional newspapers couldn't afford foreign correspondents beyond maybe Scandinavia. Yet, at the local level, a lot of effort was put into making stories as detailed and objected as possible- because local readers were assumed to know the topic material.

I think outrage sells more than it has in the past. I can't say whether US journalism hinged more on selling newspapers by appealing to their readers' sense of offense, moral outrage or fear in the past, but the scope of it is certainly new here. I think the rise of media sites that are more commentators on news stories, than producers of news stories, has alot to say, there. People are paid to "have an opinion" and write about it or talk about it, or tweet or YT about it. Research, fact checking, interviews, etc. That's for Reuters and AP, or ordinary people will simply try and do that themselves on various social media platforms.

Whether it's the media corp's economy that's at fault, or journalists are just more crappy and lazy (or both), stories need to be out faster and someone "needs" to get a mike shoved in their face so media can get the fastest reaction. Try and think not of what people today get offended by, but how they get offended. Some college student feels that a professors use of the word "black" is a micro-aggression against black transgender dwarfs with moles, and an apology is demanded of the professor. The professor apologizes exclusively for how and what a student can or might associate his words with, apologizes for the student's inferred meaning, not what he - the professor - meant himself. I think that is new, that purely visceral relationship to a news story. The "smug, probably racist, Trump supporting, evil kid", that so many, so instantly felt- just by looking at the video and screenshot - was evil. On the right he became a meme hero vs stupid, presumebly SJW'y native american. No one is interested in the kid as human being, in his story as he said it. He had to reach out himself to dispel the myths and memes rapidly evolving about him.

Maybe it's really just the social media component to media today that's the problem. The truth isn't democratic, and yet you've got millions of people crying racism or sexism or Marxism or Liberalism if they aren't made to feel like their truths, their images of themselves and others, hold or are presented to hold just as much validity as everyone else's. So the media industry, who in decades past would have represented maybe a political party, finds it most profitable and expedient to throw its money at picking a side in the new war for which side the biggest victim. And because social media is not a village, because no one meets each other as whole people down at the grocery store or bar, it's all stereotypes at war with stereotypes, people presenting their "best" face to others presenting theirs.

Ok, I'm just depressing myself, now.

[PartyOf5]

The Atlantic article reference is a journalist being honest about their failure, so it might make some of you more optimistic just for that.

I have zero optimism about the media. If the journalists making these apologies were honest, the initial mistake would have never been made. Their job is supposed to be reporting on facts. They have been knowingly negligent for a long time now, and it feels like it's getting worse each day. All "news" on television is no longer news, it's entertainment. It's WWE, Real Housewives, etc.. There is no hope for them anymore.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think it makes more sense when you consider that mass media technology is a kind of political weapon. The myth is that it is a liberating technology for ideas to spread, but if you really look at the history, you will see that just as often it does the opposite. The political ideas that spread are weaponized for one faction or another who happen to control enough means of mass media to turn the masses to their side. And if your ideas are opposed to those held by the men who control the presses, you are not getting published. Indeed, even on open platforms we have seen opposing ideas censored outright.

I would even argue that this second wave of democracy itself is nothing more than an extension of the "journalist's" power to influence the masses. The people who control the presses control the minds of huge swaths of the populace. It is in their interests to promote democracy because they control enough minds (like robots almost) to influence the outcomes of elections. This is why they manufactured the myth of journalism protecting democracy. It doesn't just protect it, it controls democracy like an insidious parasite controlling the minds of the electorate.

Most of the Yankee leaders of our own nation's rebellion were, in fact, journalists or politically tied to the people who controlled the presses.

When some call the media the opposition party, they are not really wrong, though I am unsure if many grasp what that really means.


This is not to say I want censorship or to shut down the dissemination of ideas. I just think it important to encourage everybody to disabuse themselves of this myth of journalism as an inherently good thing. It's a weapon to control minds and inflict political damage just as a stealth bomber is a weapon to inflict physical damage to opponents. It's a tool one uses to a specific end. Everybody needs to realize that this end is the manipulation of minds.

[Hastur]

Journalism might be a dying profession. Like town criers, we don't need them anymore. Put everything in the editorial section.

[BjornP]

We don't need journalism? Yeah, Hastur, I'd prefer it if we did not get all our info about what our governments do, from the government itself, nor all our info about what corporations or banks or organizations do, from the those entities themselves.