I don’t doubt this, but whenever I express it I am told I sound like a conspiracy theorist. What’s the correct model for understanding how this works in practice, and is it possible to explain that model without exposing oneself to being dismissed as a tinfoil hatter?
explaining it just means speaking at length on a topic that only an obsessed conspiracy theorist would ever devote so much attention and effort to. you can't make someone see something they're not really bothered about in the first place. most people just don't care enough to really investigate, and unfortunately that doesn't prevent them from making judgments.
I think what one brings to the table in support of their argument can reallllly make a big difference. Take the Parenti and Chomsky books I recommended, while the idea sounds conspiratorial they both bring plenty of receipts to show that is indeed what is happening.
It’s another thing entirely to try and make the connection based on, say, religion (the usual go to)
Even putting aside the fact that major news channels are pretty much by definition compromised, it’s never a good idea to blindly trust any one news source. It’s always wise to try to balance out your news with other news sources on the same subject.
Mutually exclusive. Major News === 4th branch of the government
Pretty much this, once you get big enough you're either bought or pressured into compliance
The independent stuff is where it's at but good luck finding anything with actual reach
I don’t doubt this, but whenever I express it I am told I sound like a conspiracy theorist. What’s the correct model for understanding how this works in practice, and is it possible to explain that model without exposing oneself to being dismissed as a tinfoil hatter?
Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti is a great book about the subject.
And of course the better known, but imo less good, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
explaining it just means speaking at length on a topic that only an obsessed conspiracy theorist would ever devote so much attention and effort to. you can't make someone see something they're not really bothered about in the first place. most people just don't care enough to really investigate, and unfortunately that doesn't prevent them from making judgments.
I think what one brings to the table in support of their argument can reallllly make a big difference. Take the Parenti and Chomsky books I recommended, while the idea sounds conspiratorial they both bring plenty of receipts to show that is indeed what is happening.
It’s another thing entirely to try and make the connection based on, say, religion (the usual go to)
https://thegrayzone.com isn’t “major” but it does have award winning journalists, and frequently is the anti-state department narrative
Theres nothing on broadcast tv in the us that isnt some flavor of spin and propaganda
Even putting aside the fact that major news channels are pretty much by definition compromised, it’s never a good idea to blindly trust any one news source. It’s always wise to try to balance out your news with other news sources on the same subject.
Al Jazeera normally has good international coverage IF it’s not about a gulf state being naughty
It's state funded.
Hence the Watch out for it’s weak points
No ones just doing the News for fun
cause treatment hospital crush crown spoon detail quicksand consider north
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
BBC, CNN, France 24 impartial? Are you having a laugh?
gaze nail fall mighty sink vase workable beneficial instinctive late
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
Fucker. LOL.
sugar important alleged whistle cats station ad hoc swim chop political
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
Yeah, but, you never know. I did a double take with the Algerian media, then thought, ok, no, wait what...?
OK, it's too complicated to explain why I didn't realise you were, in fact, having a laugh.
Russia Today
/s