US Election & Politics - We're Making America Great Again!

[Letters]

Either way, you have to use your brain. Are you telling me it was easier when you were being lied to?

Your assertion is that the MSM endlessly lie, it's an assertion I dispute.
But either way it's certainly easier now to find information, there are an almost endless number of sources.
But each source has its own bias and agenda and it's harder to tell the difference between the good ones and the bad.
And it's much easier to find ones which pander to your* own biases and that just reinforces them
So, overall, I think we're in a much worse position for discerning truth than we ever have been. Not for nothing was "post-truth" declared the word of the year in 2016. Why do we have a modern flat earth society? How is that a thing? It's a combination of a distrust of the mainstream and the fact that misinformation can be spread very effectively via the web. A healthy distrust of the mainstream is to be encouraged, but EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS A LIE is obvious bullshit and it's that which results in "well if THEY say the earth is round then...".
Which is pretty much what David Mitchell is saying in that video, so yes I think it's relevant - but if you've read this you probably don't need to watch it as well.

(*I mean "one's", not you specifically, but that sounded pretentious)

EDIT: Just to add this is only going to get worse with AI and Deepfakes which are going to get increasingly hard to tell from reality. It's going to get harder and harder to know what is actually true.

[Letters]

For example.

https://tryparrotai.com/video?id=w_71xle4fd

Obviously this is a bit crap but this is going to get better and harder to tell apart from reality.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Print media was supplanted by instant news media, which became a problem when the format changed to the 24 hour news network forecast.

In the US, people got their information about the world from figures like Edmund Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley. Although all three editorialised, it was more about the news than telling you what they think. That’s the problem now, everything is an op-Ed, or the op-Ed of an op-Ed.

Similar with the uk, the only time we got the light fluff was bbc breakfast or its equivalent tv-am/GMTV. Now? We’ve got the BBC News site running articles about this years John Lewis Xmas advert.

And that’s before we get into the bias, now obviously the main people who complain about media bias are those who want the media to be more biased….but just in favour of their pre-existing biases.

But of course it exists. There is dishonesty when American media reports on Trump and I really don’t get it. It’s not like there’s actually a need to embellish or take out of context most of what he says, most of it is idiotic and ridiculous enough by itself.

And the constant editorialising, just report what the guy says and does and let other people decide, rather than influencing people what to think.


Of course I’m using Trump as a paradigm case. This is a guy who will claim unfair media scrutiny if everything said about him isn’t glowingly positive….why actually provide fuel by giving him some grounds to claim unfair treatment.


However equally it can’t be pretended that the big media companies are not acting in a way to meet demand for people to have their beliefs confirmed and not challenged.


Even on here, you simply know you’re in a losing battle when someone derides your sources and expects you to treat theirs as unimpeachable.

[Letters]

It's much worse in the US. MSNBC are basically part of the Democrats campaign, Fox are part of the Republicans.
Say what you like about the BBC, they're not overtly and blatantly supporting one party. People who claim they do are generally so biased themselves it robs them of all objectivity.

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's much worse in the US. MSNBC are basically part of the Democrats campaign, Fox are part of the Republicans.
Say what you like about the BBC, they're not overtly and blatantly supporting one party. People who claim they do are generally so biased themselves it robs them of all objectivity.

You can have bias that exists outside of pure partisan bias

The BBC News reporting on the Middle East is a complete and utter sham, Sky News are no better (a result of them being purchased by Comcast I suspect). A lot of the BBC’s “sources” on Gaza are people who even the most cursory glance at would show that these are people who are either actively supportive of groups like Hamas or at the very least parrot antisemitic conspiracies.

Jeremy Bowen at the moment is almost borderline a champion of the Iranian regime


Its stance on gender identity issues is also completely skewed and is a product of the influence Stonewall has had on the organisation.


And the less said about Channel 4 News the better.

[Letters]

I'm not saying they're perfect, but in the US you have "news" organisations which are as good as part of the campaigns for one side or the other.
People on both sides watch the relevant networks and just end up ever more entrenched in their views.
Just getting in to Succession - watched the first season now. Brilliant stuff and very close to the truth in terms of who is controlling a lot of the media.

[The Wengerbabies]

very close to the truth in terms of who is controlling a lot of the media.

[Letters]

Racism

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not saying they're perfect, but in the US you have "news" organisations which are as good as part of the campaigns for one side or the other.
People on both sides watch the relevant networks and just end up ever more entrenched in their views.
Just getting in to Succession - watched the first season now. Brilliant stuff and very close to the truth in terms of who is controlling a lot of the media.

Seriously? The campaigns control the US media? So how does that work, is it a quadrennial subscription sort of thing? With the fee being a tiny fraction of the incidental revenue pumped in all year around from corporate sponsors? What if it was the corporations that controlled both the media and the political parties? Or haven't you got to that bit in the groundbreaking documentary you are researching?

Sponsored by Pfizer doesn't ring a bell?

As for the BBC, they only have the one sponsor, don't they? And it shows.

[Niall_Quinn]

Print media was supplanted by instant news media, which became a problem when the format changed to the 24 hour news network forecast.

In the US, people got their information about the world from figures like Edmund Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley. Although all three editorialised, it was more about the news than telling you what they think. That’s the problem now, everything is an op-Ed, or the op-Ed of an op-Ed.

Similar with the uk, the only time we got the light fluff was bbc breakfast or its equivalent tv-am/GMTV. Now? We’ve got the BBC News site running articles about this years John Lewis Xmas advert.

And that’s before we get into the bias, now obviously the main people who complain about media bias are those who want the media to be more biased….but just in favour of their pre-existing biases.

But of course it exists. There is dishonesty when American media reports on Trump and I really don’t get it. It’s not like there’s actually a need to embellish or take out of context most of what he says, most of it is idiotic and ridiculous enough by itself.

And the constant editorialising, just report what the guy says and does and let other people decide, rather than influencing people what to think.


Of course I’m using Trump as a paradigm case. This is a guy who will claim unfair media scrutiny if everything said about him isn’t glowingly positive….why actually provide fuel by giving him some grounds to claim unfair treatment.


However equally it can’t be pretended that the big media companies are not acting in a way to meet demand for people to have their beliefs confirmed and not challenged.


Even on here, you simply know you’re in a losing battle when someone derides your sources and expects you to treat theirs as unimpeachable.

Sounds like you are unaware of Operation Mockingbird, you should look that up and then post something up here that states you already knew about it and it's a conspiracy theory.