The Mainstream Media

Flavus Aquila said:
Your thoughts on the mainstream media.

(I have an extremely low opinion of the msm, arising from a huge gap between what I think media should be, and what it is at present).
Click to expand...

Don't you mean the Lamestream Media? Get it? Because the mainstream media is so lame? So you can call it lamestream instead of mainstream? Isn't that such a sick burn? Don't you think the msm, or rather lsm, is feeling said sick burn? I sure think so. They must be. I mean replacing main with lame is so brilliant and so harsh, how could they not be feeling the burn? Let's burn down the msm. Burn, baby, burn!
 
Giant corporations doing anything they can to gain and retain viewership.
 
dang said:
Don't you mean the Lamestream Media? Get it? Because the mainstream media is so lame? So you can call it lamestream instead of mainstream? Isn't that such a sick burn? Don't you think the msm, or rather lsm, is feeling said sick burn? I sure think so. They must be. I mean replacing main with lame is so brilliant and so harsh, how could they not be feeling the burn? Let's burn down the msm. Burn, baby, burn!
Click to expand...
A regular Rush Limbaugh this one.
 
I enjoy objective, factual information, but it can be hard to get that anywhere. Often I notice that when people are objecting to the mainstream media and endorsing other sources, they're doing so because those other sources conveniently support their views and what they believe, what they want to hear, and they fail to lend the same critical eye to "alternative" sources that they do to the mainstream media. Often, I can only trust things when I've actually heard them come from a political figure's mouth, and that's only when those words haven't been taken out of context and twisted to support someone's agenda or beliefs. I can't take headlines that interpret what have happened and attempt to analyze them, and then present that analysis as truth as news, because that analysis always seems to end up biased towards the analyzer's beliefs... even though news, ideally, should be just that, news. Not slanted, distorted, false reportings, and that goes equally for both sides of the political spectrum, whether or not either "side" is capable of accepting or believing that.

Skepticism is necessary in order to not be overly drawn in by what the news spews out, but far too often individuals see a headline and react without thinking critically or questioning what they're hearing - questioning everything they're hearing, no matter the source. Sensationalist headlines especially draw strong reactions, and people react before thinking, and their reactions compel them to spread those headlines to others. "Everyone needs to hear this! Quick, let's share it on Facebook!" And it spreads and spreads, reactions compel further reactions, and news is spread like wildfire whether it's factual or not. "Mainstream media" only has the power we give it, and were it not for the ignorance and reactionary tendencies of the masses, it wouldn't spread as it does. Still, truth can be found there, just as falsehoods can, and that goes for every single news source. In my very humble opinion, in order to acquire any truth, anywhere, one has to stop, think, question, investigate. It's far more than just seeing a headline and accepting it, even if it's from a news source that conveniently tends to cater to your views.
 
hush said:
I enjoy objective, factual information, but it can be hard to get that anywhere. Often I notice that when people are objecting to the mainstream media and endorsing other sources, they're doing so because those other sources conveniently support their views and what they believe, what they want to hear, and they fail to lend the same critical eye to "alternative" sources that they do to the mainstream media. Often, I can only trust things when I've actually heard them come from a political figure's mouth, and that's only when those words haven't been taken out of context and twisted to support someone's agenda or beliefs. I can't take headlines that interpret what have happened and attempt to analyze them, and then present that analysis as truth as news, because that analysis always seems to end up biased towards the analyzer's beliefs... even though news, ideally, should be just that, news. Not slanted, distorted, false reportings, and that goes equally for both sides of the political spectrum, whether or not either "side" is capable of accepting or believing that.

Skepticism is necessary in order to not be overly drawn in by what the news spews out, but far too often individuals see a headline and react without thinking critically or questioning what they're hearing - questioning everything they're hearing, no matter the source. Sensationalist headlines especially draw string reactions, and people react before thinking, and their reactions compel them to spread those headlines to others. "Everyone needs to hear this! Quick, let's share it on Facebook!" And it spreads and spreads, reactions compel further reactions, and news is spread like wildfire whether it's factual or not. "Mainstream media" only has the power we give it, and were it not for the ignorance and reactionary tendencies of the masses, it wouldn't spread as it does. Still, truth can be found there, just as falsehoods can, and that goes for every single news source. In my very humble opinion, in order to acquire any truth, anywhere, one has to stop, think, question, investigate. It's far more than just seeing a headline and accepting it, even if it's from a news source that conveniently tends to cater to your views.
Click to expand...


Completely agree.

The thing with the disgust with the msm right now - at least my disgust - is because I respected them and trusted them at least to some degree to not deliberately lie and twist the truth. With alternative sources I already go into it with less trust and respect lol they haven't earned it yet, but some sources are starting to earn my trust more than say, CNN.

I know that was naive on my part to trust the msm. The extent of the lies shocked me this time around. I can't trust them anymore, especially now that they're doubling down; they're not even trying to earn that trust back. It was like you said before in another thread: trust no one.
 
I think a good way to keep yourself in check is to examine how the source you're reviewing treats the arguments on both sides. Especially if the information you're consuming arouses strong emotions. That should be your first clue that the way the information is being presented isn't meant to appeal to your reason and that there is an agenda here. Particularly if this is an agenda you agree with as this is where you are most susceptible to manipulation and less likely to look into your blind spots.

Every now and again, playing a mental game of Devil's Advocate for a side you normally disagree with can unearth a wealth of information about about a source's biases and the quality of its logic and arguments. It can also enrich your understanding of the situation (because I assume that's the goal). It's not enough to just check if the source is even considering pro's and con's for both sides. Quality of arguments counts immensely. Be aware of logical fallacies. Appeals to authority, appeals to emotions, begging the question, strawmen and loaded questions are all so common, you can look at any news segment (regardless of whether the source is mainstream or alternative) and play a game of bingo.

A basic understanding of statistics and how easily they can be manipulated is also a must. Khan Academy has a course on statistics; you can also find a plethora of lectures on the subject on YouTube. This is a weak spot for many people.

To me, alternate news sources just means doing research. It's mixing and matching your sources and looking at things from a few different perspectives. It doesn't mean latching onto the first google result, or the first news segment that comes up and fits your view. Its being aware of how easily information can be manipulated and looking at it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

We're always being led into this state of urgency; that the information we're being given needs to be immediately actionable and have us make some kind of judgment. And in some cases, it is warranted. In most cases, though, we don't have to make up our minds up on the spot. We can take the time to think, to research, to consider and analyze. It is OK to withhold judgment before more information comes in, because more information is always coming in and reshaping the situation. If we've already made up our minds about something, we're less likely to incorporate new information that challenges our perspectives. I think letting go of having our views being proven 'right' is something that we all need to work on if we're going to be able to soberly judge the information we're being given--regardless of where the information comes from.
 
Last edited:
CindyLou said:
Completely agree.

The thing with the disgust with the msm right now - at least my disgust - is because I respected them and trusted them at least to some degree to not deliberately lie and twist the truth. With alternative sources I already go into it with less trust and respect lol they haven't earned it yet, but some sources are starting to earn my trust more than say, CNN.

I know that was naive on my part to trust the msm. The extent of the lies shocked me this time around. I can't trust them anymore, especially now that they're doubling down; they're not even trying to earn that trust back. It was like you said before in another thread: trust no one.
Click to expand...

I think I'm still stuck on those last three words; I've been burned so many times, it makes that trust all that harder earn, and I'm left with so very little. I'm also a bit jaded, and so used to the lies that it doesn't shock me. The lies would disappoint me, if I held any expectations that involved upholding the truth, but instead what surprises and shocks me is when I find objective information that hasn't been skewed, which I suppose is a bit sad. But yeah... I'm not shocked because news sources supporting their own agenda is what I learned to expect long ago. It really has gotten to the point where I can't accept anything without hard evidence, and I spend most of my time taking in information and trying to sift through it to find miniscule morsels of truth, rather than being able to react to anything... because I haven't been given anything of substance to which to react.
 
hush said:
I enjoy objective, factual information, but it can be hard to get that anywhere. Often I notice that when people are objecting to the mainstream media and endorsing other sources, they're doing so because those other sources conveniently support their views and what they believe, what they want to hear, and they fail to lend the same critical eye to "alternative" sources that they do to the mainstream media. Often, I can only trust things when I've actually heard them come from a political figure's mouth, and that's only when those words haven't been taken out of context and twisted to support someone's agenda or beliefs. I can't take headlines that interpret what have happened and attempt to analyze them, and then present that analysis as truth as news, because that analysis always seems to end up biased towards the analyzer's beliefs... even though news, ideally, should be just that, news. Not slanted, distorted, false reportings, and that goes equally for both sides of the political spectrum, whether or not either "side" is capable of accepting or believing that.

Skepticism is necessary in order to not be overly drawn in by what the news spews out, but far too often individuals see a headline and react without thinking critically or questioning what they're hearing - questioning everything they're hearing, no matter the source. Sensationalist headlines especially draw strong reactions, and people react before thinking, and their reactions compel them to spread those headlines to others. "Everyone needs to hear this! Quick, let's share it on Facebook!" And it spreads and spreads, reactions compel further reactions, and news is spread like wildfire whether it's factual or not. "Mainstream media" only has the power we give it, and were it not for the ignorance and reactionary tendencies of the masses, it wouldn't spread as it does. Still, truth can be found there, just as falsehoods can, and that goes for every single news source. In my very humble opinion, in order to acquire any truth, anywhere, one has to stop, think, question, investigate. It's far more than just seeing a headline and accepting it, even if it's from a news source that conveniently tends to cater to your views.
Click to expand...
You're basically saying (in long-format) that people seek out echo chambers.

I think people increasingly are noticing that the poorly defined "establishment" and msm all inhabit one large echo chamber (which is increasingly detached from their everyday reality).

Alternative sources are appealing because they offer alternative views, often outside the extraordinarily predictable and monolithic narrative the msm incessantly tries to impose.

@hush edit addition: Be it from boredom seeking variety, or from sincere truth-seeking, the msm is losing the minds of the more inquisitive part of the population.

The coordinated move against alternative media by politicians, msm outlets, and tech giants/silicon valley will certainly fire up many conspiracy theorists as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top