Who do you trust?

6th

Its a simple question, when it comes to gathering information, who do you trust? What are your sources?

Gu3rr1lla

Why should I trust a source?

6th

I never said you should. I just want to know who you trust and why?

mirwillbeback

6th wrote: »

Its a simple question, when it comes to gathering information, who do you trust? What are your sources?

Sky News never have an angle or seek to dramatise.

Look at the sensitive way they didn't over blow Madeline McCann's disappearance.

:eek:

jonbravo

6th wrote: »

I never said you should. I just want to know who you trust and why?

it all depends on what your looking for in that regard? some conspiracy theories are so mysterious, one side you have believers, the other the skeptics, you have to have an open mind to all opinions from either side ..trust is not the word that comes into it ,when there is middle ground to be had by both partys.dont know how else to answer that question!?:o

Kernel

haha. Trust no-one 6th.

For mainstream media, I like BBC actually.

Nick_oliveri

Channel 4 news is quite likeable, but as the OP would suggest, i wouldnt find ulterior motive or conspiracy in a lot of stories (anymore). It is better to be skeptical, the question is the quantity of skepticism used. When I see someone purporting to be Skeptic, I assume it applies across the board, be it media, politics or everyday life.

m2c

espinolman

I don't really trust any sources , i don't trust the mainstream media , there is no way i will ever trust an authoritarian , i don't trust anything on the internet , Alex Jones is good however i don't trust everything he says.
I look into everyting i can and then come to my own conclusions but i would not make the mistake of trusting any sources .

Kernel

Honourable mention for Deep Throat btw. Legend. (not the porno)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat

Économiste Monétaire

I trust Fox News.

Vadrefjorde

Channel 4 news sometimes
Russia Today
Euronews at times

Time Magazine

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

I trust Fox News.

Indeed. Rupert Murdoch has shown himself time and time again to be more than willing to go against the grain and stick up for free speech even if he gets stick from the liberal media. For example, last week



was printed in one of his newspapers. I believe Murdoch even drew it himself. If that's not a man willing to stick it to the establishment I don't who is!

Économiste Monétaire

Exactly! Too many Lizzzard liberals conspiring against Sarah Palin to get their NWO man in.

South Park.

Seriously, they get it right every time.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

Its a simple question, when it comes to gathering information, who do you trust? What are your sources?

Run To Da Hills big brother updates.;)

6th

6th wrote: »

Its a simple question, when it comes to gathering information, who do you trust? What are your sources?

Oh my God! Youu're that guy from Master chef!

Its all so clear now!!

Mat from MasterChef


Mat from Masterchef?

dyl10

RTE Radio is my preferred information outlet

espinolman

A source that i have always found very reliable , you see i would go into a book shop and in the science-fiction section would get a book , i would have a good idea which authors' would be putting in there what is going on in the world , but you have to read between the lines.

thebang

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

I trust Fox News.

Ah Fox, they tell lies better than most people tell the truth!

thebang

FT all the way. I used to trust the Guardian though.......

espinolman

thebang wrote: »

Ah Fox, they tell lies better than most people tell the truth!

Faux News that's hilarious , anytime i watch it i can't stop laughing , to think there is people who take that seriously , it's more like a fashion show.:D

Sherifu

Pat Kenny.

thebang

espinolman wrote: »

Faux News that's hilarious , anytime i watch it i can't stop laughing , to think there is people who take that seriously , it's more like a fashion show.:D

I love the Sean Hannity show. I bought his book, he has a section in the back about the countries America should attack next. Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LGeYr1hiQ

Diogenes

I've worked for most news organisations from Al Jazeera, to CNN, to Sky, to the BBC, and fact checking is taken seriously, mistakes are not tolerated (to a degree the internal staff motto of sky news is "Never wrong for long") there is on the other hand a culture of fact checking. However knowing that mistakes can happen means when looking up a story on one of the major news networks, means I usually double check an alternative credible news source before I am completely convinced.

Working in news, particularly rolling 24 hour news, means I am very sceptical of first hand eyewitness reports of an event. For example many people take claims that "it sounded like bombs going off" during the collapse of the WTC on Sept 11th as proof of explosives being used. It's not, it's proof of metaphor and simile in the descriptive act. Similarly working on Hurricane Katrina, we were inundated with reports of events like gang rapes occurring the in the superdome, or people on roof tops shooting at helicopters to get their attention. Both proved to be utterly without merit, and is the major flaw of 24 hr news where events aren't given context and speculation isn't regarded with a healthy degree of scepticism.

On the other hand there are people like the Alex Jones of this world, who do to journalistic credibility what the christian brothers did to childhood innocence.

A few months ago there was a post on the JREF forum, where a serving member of the USAF announced he was about to get his RFID chip installed in his arm. His was unhappy with this, and even produced a scan of his paper work. Alex Jones ran publicaly on air with this story, and kept ranting on about it, until the poster called into Jones and said RFID stamp on his document, stands for "Returned for Identification" and he had no chip. Jones spouted abuse at him and called him the son of satan. But the fact remains, no reputable mainstream media organisation would quote verbatim from a internet website as proof of their theory without even attempting to fact check the claim.

Alex Jones does though. As does Icke. Don't even get me started about the "alternative viewpoints of some of these people.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I trust the american government.

thebang

Come on Diogenes, anyone who takes people like Alex Jones seriously is not worth thinking about. All though arguing with just about anyone who watched spare change does my head in.

thebang

Sky though, dont care if they are right or not they are just pompous and annoying

espinolman

Diogenes wrote: »

I've worked for most news organisations from Al Jazeera, to CNN, to Sky, to the BBC, and fact checking is taken seriously, mistakes are not tolerated (to a degree the internal staff motto of sky news is "Never wrong for long") there is on the other hand a culture of fact checking.

It is what the news organisations are not telling us about that would worry me , for example chemtrails which i first noticed in the year 2000 , i noticed that the contrails from aeroplanes' were not dissiating like they used to , this is something which is very observable and yet i have heard nothing from the news organisations about this therefore i would have to presume there is censorship , that the mainstream news is controlled to a degree , if something as observable as chemtrails can be omitted from the mainstream news well then i would have to wonder what else are we not being told about !

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

It is what the news organisations are not telling us about that would worry me , for example chemtrails which i first noticed in the year 2000 , i noticed that the contrails from aeroplanes' were not dissiating like they used to , this is something which is very observable and yet i have heard nothing from the news organisations about this therefore i would have to presume there is censorship , that the mainstream news is controlled to a degree , if something as observable as chemtrails can be omitted from the mainstream news well then i would have to wonder what else are we not being told about !

Or we could have media organisations just telling us any old crap without checking whatsoever, like the internet is full of. I can't fathom how anyone takes Alex Jones seriously, I put him up there with Fox news. The agenda may be different but it's an agenda all the same.

Start a new thread if you think it's best but maybe you can explain to me how all these planes that are supposedly spraying us from the air can go undetected. That not one of these planes has been proven to exist when the CIA rendition flights have been pretty easily tracked all over the world. Seriously explain it to me? Never mind that you think the contrails look different to when you were a child.

nyarlothothep

espinolman wrote: »

It is what the news organisations are not telling us about that would worry me , for example chemtrails which i first noticed in the year 2000 , i noticed that the contrails from aeroplanes' were not dissiating like they used to , this is something which is very observable and yet i have heard nothing from the news organisations about this therefore i would have to presume there is censorship , that the mainstream news is controlled to a degree , if something as observable as chemtrails can be omitted from the mainstream news well then i would have to wonder what else are we not being told about !

True that, there are a lot of unreported events around the world that media organizations don't report on for fear of offending their political masters. Or if they do its propaganda, and lies or denial are propounded, example would be how Sadat was presented as a reformed warmonger due to the influence of Carter/Kissinger even though he made many attempts at a peace process with Israel, which was explicitly rejectionist, in fact many of Israels top brass were terrified at the prospect of peaceful reconciliation. Not much a conspiracy though as its documented fact. Don't trust mainstream media institutions, as they're are in the pocket of the elites.

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

It is what the news organisations are not telling us about that would worry me , for example chemtrails which i first noticed in the year 2000 , i noticed that the contrails from aeroplanes' were not dissiating like they used to , this is something which is very observable and yet i have heard nothing from the news organisations about this therefore i would have to presume there is censorship , that the mainstream news is controlled to a degree , if something as observable as chemtrails can be omitted from the mainstream news well then i would have to wonder what else are we not being told about !

Alternatively you could examine it and discover people have been talking about it for over a decade. That it has to do with contrails and different weather conditions.

Let me explain, this is called confirmation of basis. You suspect that the government is committing sinister acts against you. You see "suspicious" lines in the sky. You view this as proof. You cannot explain what these lines are doing, you know that they are bad though. The media does not report these lines, ergo the media is in it.

It does not occur to you that there is an innocuous non sinister explanation for these lines.

In short you are actively seeking out a conspiracy and forcing the facts to suits your "theories".

Or to use an analogy, the media aren't reporting on the killer bunny rabbits that keep turning my milk sour, ergo the media is in league with the bunnies, and the electrician who keeps telling me that my fridge is broken.

Brien

Deleted User wrote: »

South Park.

Seriously, they get it right every time.

you got there before me.

in this day and age the only other way to be sure is if its on lilly allens myspace or facebook blog, sky news, news.com and the fm104 hourly news

meglome

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Don't trust mainstream media institutions, as they're are in the pocket of the elites.

The funny thing is they actually check their facts which the non-mainstream media just don't do very well (and I'm being generous). So even though Sky news may be owned by the devil himself they can be shown to be factual. The non-mainstream media are full of agendas but we're somehow supposed to believe them as they are not owned by 'elites'. I said it in another thread, a snakeoil salesman is just that no matter what he may dress himself up as.

meglome

Diogenes wrote: »

Or to use an analogy, the media aren't reporting on the killer bunny rabbits that keep turning my milk sour, ergo the media is in league with the bunnies, and the electrician who keeps telling me that my fridge is broken.

he he he brilliant.

nyarlothothep

meglome wrote: »

The funny thing is they actually check their facts which the non-mainstream media just don't do very well (and I'm being generous). So even though Sky news may be owned by the devil himself they can be shown to be factual. The non-mainstream media are full of agendas but we're somehow supposed to believe them as they are not owned by 'elites'. I said it in another thread, a snakeoil salesman is just that no matter what he may dress himself up as.

True, there are a lot of unreliable organizations. I use the word trust in the fullest sense of the word, the big media institutions put themselves out there as being objective,reporting fact, institutions you can rely on to deliver the truth and this is not the case. Therefore I wouldn't rely on them at all, I would be skeptical about many things. And when you see some celeb story (which can happen) in a broadsheet you have to ask yourself, what is being omitted because I can guarantee you there are million things the media just won't touch with a 100 metre cattle prod. In any case the internet has really opened up the floodgates for alternative sources of information and while there is a lot of nonsense out there there are non mainstream organizations which provide a reliable service. Probably one of the reasons there has been a concerted lobbyist effort in the US to fundamentally eliminate net neutrality, but I think the net is like print before it, progress cannot be stopped.

meglome

nyarlothothep wrote: »

True, there are a lot of unreliable organizations. I use the word trust in the fullest sense of the word, the big media institutions put themselves out there as being objective,reporting fact, institutions you can rely on to deliver the truth and this is not the case. Therefore I wouldn't rely on them at all, I would be skeptical about many things. And when you see some celeb story (which can happen) in a broadsheet you have to ask yourself, what is being omitted because I can guarantee you there are million things the media just won't touch with a 100 metre cattle prod. In any case the internet has really opened up the floodgates for alternative sources of information and while there is a lot of nonsense out there there are non mainstream organizations which provide a reliable service. Probably one of the reasons there has been a concerted lobbyist effort in the US to fundamentally eliminate net neutrality, but I think the net is like print before it, progress cannot be stopped.

Sure I just don't see it as simply as one side bad the other side good. Any organisation can have an agenda, no matter how big or small. But there seems to be an assumption amongst CT'ers that the mainstream media isn't to be trusted, as a sceptic I just don't assume anything. The fact checking on many internet sites is abysmal though, they don't have to hold themselves to almost any standard. A mainstream news organisation may get a story which they can't prove so they may not run it.

Diogenes

nyarlothothep wrote: »

guarantee you there are million things the media just won't touch with a 100 metre cattle prod.

Things like....

In any case the internet has really opened up the floodgates for alternative sources of information and while there is a lot of nonsense out there there are non mainstream organizations which provide a reliable service..

Can you name these reliable sources?

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

Start a new thread if you think it's best but maybe you can explain to me how all these planes that are supposedly spraying us from the air can go undetected. That not one of these planes has been proven to exist when the CIA rendition flights have been pretty easily tracked all over the world. Seriously explain it to me? Never mind that you think the contrails look different to when you were a child.

meglome i want to sincerely thank you for your responce to my post i was hoping a poster would try to deny the existence of chemtrails .

The guardian newspaper reports the uk government admitting spraying chemtrails over the unwitting population for a number of years.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

Chemtrails have been officialy admitted by the U.S. government in H.R.2977 :
http://www.carnicom.com/hr2977.htm

The German military has admitted to creating chemtrails :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

meglome i want to sincerely thank you for your responce to my post i was hoping a poster would try to deny the existence of chemtrails .

Hang on a second.
You just said that the mainstream media won't do a story about chemtrails. Then you post links to two mainstream media outlets you think that do stories about chemtrails.

espinolman wrote: »

The guardian newspaper reports the uk government admitting spraying chemtrails over the unwitting population for a number of years.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

If you actually read this article you'd see that 1) these alledged test occured in the 60s and 70s and haven't continued. and 2) where deployed for a ship not plane. Therefore they are not chemtrails.

espinolman wrote: »

Chemtrails have been officialy admitted by the U.S. government in H.R.2977 :
http://www.carnicom.com/hr2977.htm

It's mentioned once and once only. It's not anywhere close to being "officially admitted."
But then the document also mentions sonic weapons! therefore we are being bombarded with sonic waves by the government for some reason!

espinolman wrote: »

The German military has admitted to creating chemtrails :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4

I don't speak German, and from the comments of the video it looks like there's some debate over the translation.

It's pretty apparent you'll believe anything you see that confirms your belief even if it comes from the media you claim is controlled.

thebang

God I would probably be proud if I could pull anything as ridiculous as a conspiracy theory off. Imagine it, I would sit in a gentlemens club smoking a cigar and someone would ask me 'So what do you think of the new president of Tyranastan' and I would just go 'I do'nt like him. Have him killed!'
Take Loose Change again, that someone like Bush would be able to plan 911 and cover it up - come on........

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on a second.
You just said that the mainstream media won't do a story about chemtrails.

Now where did i say that !

King Mob wrote: »

If you actually read this article you'd see that 1) these alledged test occured in the 60s and 70s and haven't continued. and 2) where deployed for a ship not plane. Therefore they are not chemtrails.

If you had read the full article you would see that between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population.

King Mob wrote: »

It's mentioned once and once only. It's not anywhere close to being "officially admitted."

It's an admission

King Mob wrote: »

It's pretty apparent you'll believe anything you see that confirms your belief even if it comes from the media you claim is controlled.

I said it is controlled to a degree.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Now where did i say that !

espinolman wrote: »

It is what the news organisations are not telling us about that would worry me , for example chemtrails ....

espinolman wrote: »

If you had read the full article[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] you would see that between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. [/FONT]

Oh you mean the stuff the article say is florescent and contains none of the chemicals that are claimed to be contained in chemtrails? Obviously not a test to see how an air delivered substance would spread at all.

espinolman wrote: »

It's an admission

So one word in one document amounts to an admission? Seriously?

espinolman wrote: »

I said it is controlled to a degree.

Then can you quantify the degree it's controlled? Is it controlled when it's in contrast to your belief and not controlled when they seem to confirm your beliefs perhaps?

Diogenes

King Mob wrote: »

Then can you quantify the degree it's controlled? Is it controlled when it's in contrast to your belief and not controlled when they seem to confirm your beliefs perhaps?

Yes please clarify. Station owners? News Directors? Journalists?

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

meglome i want to sincerely thank you for your responce to my post i was hoping a poster would try to deny the existence of chemtrails .

The guardian newspaper reports the uk government admitting spraying chemtrails over the unwitting population for a number of years.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

Chemtrails have been officialy admitted by the U.S. government in H.R.2977 :
http://www.carnicom.com/hr2977.htm

The German military has admitted to creating chemtrails :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4

King Mob has addressed some other points so I won't rehash those. Anyway back to my point. There is detailed info now available for supposedly secret CIA rendition flights. The planes were tracked by following their flights plans, simple and easy. Why is there no evidence of flights spraying chemtrails? There should be lot's of flights if it's going on so list them off for us please.

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

Why is there no evidence of flights spraying chemtrails? There should be lot's of flights if it's going on so list them off for us please.

I can see chemtrails with my own eyes over Ireland so that evidence is good enough for me , and of course i won't hear about these chemtrails from the controlled Irish media .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

I can see chemtrails with my own eyes over Ireland so that evidence is good enough for me , and of course i won't hear about these chemtrails from the controlled Irish media .

Ah so only Irish media is controlled.
But the Guardian news paper and RTL aren't?

What leads you to believe the Irish media is controlled?

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

I can see chemtrails with my own eyes over Ireland so that evidence is good enough for me , and of course i won't hear about these chemtrails from the controlled Irish media .

Okay... I don't know you, you could be a genius, crazy, blind, deluded...whatever. To my knowledge you're not a meteorologist nor any kind of scientist. So you can believe anything you like but to have others take you seriously and believe you, you're going to have to supply some kind of evidence. So far you've supplied no evidence whatsoever, not even a credible reason to do it. Now in something supposedly this widespread then there would be lots of evidence, from the flight plans onward. If you can supply nothing then I'm going to assume you're at least mistaken and quite possibly deluded.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Ah so only Irish media is controlled.
But the Guardian news paper and RTL aren't?

What leads you to believe the Irish media is controlled?

Well because they don't seem to talk about something people can see that is very observable which are chemtrails.

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

Well because they don't seem to talk about something people can see that is very observable which are chemtrails.

You should get on to the scientific community, as a man that can see and identify chemicals in the sky by sight, you'd be a absolute boon. They'd sign you up in a second, fat salary the whole works. Or maybe that's impossible, just maybe.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Well because they don't seem to talk about something people can see that is very observable which are chemtrails.

Could it be that chemtrails have no merit? You know with the lack of supporting evidence and lack of plausibility. Just an idea.

The Irish media don't do reports on the sonic weapons the Americans are using against us all, even though it's been admitted in this report http://www.carnicom.com/hr2977.htm :eek:

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

To my knowledge you're not a meteorologist nor any kind of scientist.

Now meteorologists' and scientists' will want to keep their jobs and their careers so they are not going to talk about anything they are not 'supposed' to talk about that there is obviously a media blackout on such as chemtrails' .