Do You Trust Mainstream Media

Brown Bomber

Please watch this.

Sparticle

Define mainstream?

Brown Bomber

Sparticle wrote: »

Define mainstream?

Well that is difficult without being overly complex. It has a different meaning to different folk. I could say anything that is not alternative media, but then you would ask me to define that.

For the purposes of simplicity I mean all media be it print, tv, new media, publishing etc that is controlled by government or corporations.

Wibbs

Where's the option for "maybe, it depends"?

mysterious

lmao who said yeah? seriously ? the MSM?

Torakx

I dont ussually trust any media.I tend to try get all angles especially the ones i trust the least by reputation and make my own theory on what is going on.Sometimes im wrong sometimes im right and sometimes i havent seen the outcomes yet

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For the purposes of simplicity I mean all media be it print, tv, new media, publishing etc that is controlled by government or corporations.

You can add political lobby groups, support and solidarity groups, religious interests, social and philosophical interests into that too. In fact anyone with an opinion is capable of bias in their reportage.

You'll often notice that "Alternative Media" is actually proud of their media bias, which is quite odd when you consider the implications of that.

It could be fairly safe to say don't "trust" any media as fact. Why contain it just to government and corporations?

Sparticle

I trust unbiased sources which have a track record of accuracy.

caseyann

I trust no one

PirateShampoo

I think you could do a better job with the poll.

studiorat

Fake CNN footage debunked...
http://zombiesuncensored.com/politics/did-cnn-fake-gulf-war-story-nope/

coverage was on the roof of a hotel and military facility near the intersection of the two main runways at the Dhahran Air Base, Western Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The plywood background was erected as a guard against sand and wind storms. The clowning around on the video is just that.

Funny how the Jaco/CNN "SMEAR CAMPAIGN":eek::eek::eek: has gone viral again after his run-in with the Tea-Party (Tea-Baggers.)

Charles Jaco is a leftwing journalist for the local Fox channel whose never met a Tea Party slur he didn't like. Jaco did hit pieces on the April 15th Tea Party, comparing us to domestic terrorists and bringing in the Southern Poverty Law Center to compare us to militia volunteers. His report was so egregious, the Fox Channel apologized for it the next day, dismissing his allegations of connections from the Tea Party to any domestic terror group.

Looks like the current move against Jaco a figment of "Troother" media bias.

PS. While reading up on this I came across an offer for a "DON'T BELIEVE LIBERAL MEDIA" bumper sticker. If anyone want's one I can pass on the email address.

nullzero

Even away from the CT world, mainstream media isn't trustworthy. Bit of a no brainer I would have thought.

Undergod

I don't think the entire mainstream media are being controlled by any NWO, but they are going report events in such a way as makes business sense, rather than necessarily telling the truth. Many outlets will have their own political or economic agendas as well.

In general, I'll pay attention to what they say, but filter it through a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism, and question the history and motvies of the outlet in question.

studiorat

Just wondering why everyone in the "Israel attacking the Convoy" thread was quoting from the "Mainstream Media" this morning?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

CT is Isreali current and future denials of this and every other life they steal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10195838.stm

uprising2 wrote: »

I heard this on the 9am news this morning in the car,

Helicopters halt Oireachtas trio in Gaza aid trip
THREE members of the
Mr O Snodaigh said this shows the level of pressure Israel exerted on the Cyprian government.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/helicopters-halt-oireachtas-trio-in-gaza-aid-trip-2201208.html

I thought people didn't trust it...

robtri

studiorat wrote: »

Just wondering why everyone in the "Israel attacking the Convoy" thread was quoting from the "Mainstream Media" this morning?




I thought people didn't trust it...

mistrust is only there when the media disagrees with certains people perception of events.

when it agrees with what they think happened, its good to use...

with this sort of logic u cant win

uprising2

studiorat wrote: »

Just wondering why everyone in the "Israel attacking the Convoy" thread was quoting from the "Mainstream Media" this morning?




I thought people didn't trust it...

This story is also available on alternative news media, it's just I cant tune to any while driving in Dublin on FM or MW, and the station I got my info from also reports overnight murders and car crashes etc, this is common knowledge news, its when spin is stuffed in that the info gets dodgy, such as reports that the Israeli's were fired upon first on one side, then the other side that says an activist was shot from above, theres spin being spun now, the IDF have released a heavily edited version where infared images show the story.

The facts are that a number of humanitarian activists have been shot dead by IDF, how this came about is where the trust and mistrust of mainstream media comes about,do you understand what I mean?, heres a CNN take on things, makes the activists sound like the aggressors, they weren't about to invade,hurt or steal from israel, they didn't want to go to israel, they wanted to go to Gaza, with badly needed humanitarian aid, to slightly ease the daily suffering felt by a forgotten people who desperately needed it.

CNN:
"An Israeli commando said upon descending into a boat with ropes, he was immediately attacked by a group of people.
"They beat us up with metal sticks and knives," he said. "There was live fire at some point against us... They were shooting at us from below deck."
Some of the soldiers were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck by the activists, and jumped in the water to save themselves, he said."
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.flotilla.israeli.raid/index.html?hpt=T1

"They beat us with metal sticks and knives, there was live fire at some point against us", if I had a knife to attack somebody with I would rather stab him than beat him with it, and this shooting at some point against them, was any soldier shot?, or was the "shooter" a bad shot?.

And by the way how many mainstream news agencies have reported that while in international waters its an act of piracy to illegally board and take control of any vessel, the activists had every right to defend their ship from being invaded by an armed hostile foreign force, israel was not defending israel, it did not happen in israeli waters, they had no right to storm a humanitarian aid ship in full riot gear, heavily armed in international waters.

How many times have you seen somebody here say the twin towers didn't collapse because CNN/FOX etc said they did?, its the background spin that makes the difference, try to understand that, and "trust" usually means 100% trust, no lies nor spin.

uprising2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66163312&postcount=16

namloc1980 wrote: »

+1. on foxnews.com earlier the headline read something like "10 pro-palestinian activists killed after attacking Israeli Navy"!!!!

Unreal!!! At the moment on foxnews.com they are claiming that the aid flotilla has Al Qaeda links!!!!! Can you believe that ****e!!

The IDF are nothing but murderous savages.

So do you two (rob/rat) trust mainstream media ?, can you understand why people will question and feel sick while being fed crap.

See the 10 Pro Palestinian Activists killed after attacking Israeli Navy, do you trust this account?, is it true and to be trusted or blatantly false and misleading bolllox?

My local Dublin radio station news forgot to mention they were bringing AlQaeda linked Aid, the eejits just said Humanitarian Aid.

studiorat

What's to trust or not to trust? It's only "crap" because you don't agree with the analysis, someone else thinks the aid workers are "pro-Palestinian activists" and to a certain extent they are in fact right, it depends on the context and whether you think calling them that is a slur or not.

The news is the news, no one is being fed anything, it's the analysis of that information that counts.

It's not seeing the bigger picture either way, either to say that "we are all being fed crap" or "we believe everything we read". You can't just say everything on RTE or BBC is made up to brainwash people and everything on Prison Planet or whatever is the trooth. The latter have their agendas too, to "trust" them is playing their game as well.

You either agree with a journalist's analysis or you don't, it's not a question of trust. To expect a situation where you can "trust the media" is asking to be spoon fed facts and information, no different from being one of the "sheelpe" as it were.

So imagine we had a situation where the people who took place in the poll here did have an opportunity to make the media something you could "trust", what then? You still have a situation where another group of people don't.

robtri

uprising2 wrote: »

This story is also available on alternative news media, it's just I cant tune to any while driving in Dublin on FM or MW, and the station I got my info from also reports overnight murders and car crashes etc, this is common knowledge news, its when spin is stuffed in that the info gets dodgy, such as reports that the Israeli's were fired upon first on one side, then the other side that says an activist was shot from above, theres spin being spun now, the IDF have released a heavily edited version where infared images show the story.

The facts are that a number of humanitarian activists have been shot dead by IDF, how this came about is where the trust and mistrust of mainstream media comes about,do you understand what I mean?, heres a CNN take on things, makes the activists sound like the aggressors, they weren't about to invade,hurt or steal from israel, they didn't want to go to israel, they wanted to go to Gaza, with badly needed humanitarian aid, to slightly ease the daily suffering felt by a forgotten people who desperately needed it.

CNN:
"An Israeli commando said upon descending into a boat with ropes, he was immediately attacked by a group of people.
"They beat us up with metal sticks and knives," he said. "There was live fire at some point against us... They were shooting at us from below deck."
Some of the soldiers were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck by the activists, and jumped in the water to save themselves, he said."
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.flotilla.israeli.raid/index.html?hpt=T1

"They beat us with metal sticks and knives, there was live fire at some point against us", if I had a knife to attack somebody with I would rather stab him than beat him with it, and this shooting at some point against them, was any soldier shot?, or was the "shooter" a bad shot?.

And by the way how many mainstream news agencies have reported that while in international waters its an act of piracy to illegally board and take control of any vessel, the activists had every right to defend their ship from being invaded by an armed hostile foreign force, israel was not defending israel, it did not happen in israeli waters, they had no right to storm a humanitarian aid ship in full riot gear, heavily armed in international waters.

How many times have you seen somebody here say the twin towers didn't collapse because CNN/FOX etc said they did?, its the background spin that makes the difference, try to understand that, and "trust" usually means 100% trust, no lies nor spin.

sorry but this is BS on a huge scale,

you cant say you dont trust main stream media and then use them to suport your cases and get your points accross, then when anybody else uses mainstream media that doesnt agree with your point of view, you dismiss it and say main stream media is not to be trusted....

that is such a joke... laughable actually.


Is mainstream media biased... well yes... biased to make money and sell news.. yes.. do they purposely outright lie... i dont believe that is the intention or happens very often, but i am sure some reporters do to make a name for themselves...

but in the same breadth, IMO most alternative media has a worse agenda in my mind and is more likely to stretch the truth to suit their needs.

Podman

studiorat

chompy wrote: »

Well there's the vote for the hipster media! Someone gets their news from myspace.

You should get a t-shirt with that it would be really cool.

Di0genes

chompy wrote: »

Well for starts Bin Laden was a wealthy well educated Saudi Arabian.

So pretty much everything in your little clipart is 100% wrong.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Well for starts Bin Laden was a wealthy well educated Saudi Arabian.

So pretty much everything in your little clipart is 100% wrong.

Doh!

It is supposed to be wrong. That is the joke part.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Doh!

It is supposed to be wrong. That is the joke part.

No it's suggesting that people claim Bin Laden was an Afghanistan Gypsy. The only people talking down Bin laden's education and background are the conspiracy theorists who want to suggest it was impossible for some "Cave dwelling Arabs" to carry out the attacks.

The cartoon is a pathetic conspiracy theory strawman.

Undergod

I didn't read it as such, I assumed it was ridiculing the low level of awareness of the outside world that Americans stereotypically have.

studiorat

Podman

People believe what they are told (especially if the drinking water contains fluoride or chlorine, to make the public docile and suggestable).

Some people choose to accept the big lie and ignore the evidence, those people are already defeated.

studiorat

chompy wrote: »

People believe what they are told (especially if the drinking water contains fluoride or chlorine, to make the public docile and suggestable).

Some people choose to accept the big lie and ignore the evidence, those people are already defeated.

So now we're onto Fluoride and Chlorine. Smacks of David Icke right there.

People blindly buy into "Alternative" media because it's neatly packaged and marketed just so it can fit in with their "Alternative" lifestyle. Hipsters just love this ****.

You really could label any old rubbish as Alternative news and the hipsters would lap it up thinking they were being subversive. You could stick a ring through half of these bozo's noses and lead them around like a prize bull as long as you told them it was an alternative news story.

Tell 'em they are "awake" or their "eyes are open" and they'll swallow a friggin' brick.

Podman

I see its "High Horse" time

studiorat wrote: »

So now we're onto Fluoride and Chlorine. Smacks of David Icke right there.

People blindly buy into "Alternative" media because it's neatly packaged and marketed just so it can fit in with their "Alternative" lifestyle. Hipsters just love this ****.

You really could label any old rubbish as Alternative news and the hipsters would lap it up thinking they were being subversive. You could stick a ring through half of these bozo's noses and lead them around like a prize bull as long as you told them it was an alternative news story.

Tell 'em they are "awake" or their "eyes are open" and they'll swallow a friggin' brick.

studiorat

chompy wrote: »

I see its "High Horse" time

Apologies, I must have hit a nerve.

Podman

studiorat wrote: »

Apologies, I must have hit a nerve.

Were you trying to?