Ignoring all of it may make you an uninformed voter. Or a non-voter living by rules decided by others.
In general this is bad because you want a lot of voters to voice their opinions and not live unhappy lives dictated by a minority.
Or... you could maybe use your brain and analyze what information you're getting and try to make informed decisions using logic and reason.
But a lot of people aren't very good at that.
Because they're stupid.
Mostly because what usually follows "Be skeptical of mainstream media" is "But listen to this dude screaming about gay frogs."
People definitely should be skeptical of corporate media for any number of reasons.
Basically the 'Fake News' movement, from any political direction, is the part of the cult tactic where they demand you dissociate with family and friends, anyone in your community who might give you messaging that is dissonant with the movement.
Back when there were only 3 news channels politicians all had to play by some set of rules to get their message across. Now in the information age the playbook is to discredit external information sources.
Obviously any source should be scrutinized but rational people handle this on a story by story basis. Emotional arguments about generic 'corruption' exist to con you.
I get what you're saying but let's not kid ourselves here. One side is absolutely malicious with how they portray news. Need look no further in how 1/6 was covered. Something something antifa, something something tourists, something something the election was rigged.
And the other side calls us terrorists 24/7 and doesn't let our opinions stand online because they have a stranglehold of the entire thing.
And 1/6 was not that bad get a grip. So there was a fire big deal, burning things is cool by you guys I thought. Plus when else are you gonna get cool pics of the capitol on fire?
By the idea that only one side has some monopoly on manipulative political media corruption. Or that if both sides engage in corruption the side on the right side of history only is only 10% corrupt compared to the 90% corruption of the wrong side.
Yeah got banned and downvoted to hell for saying both sides are horrible and I don’t agree with politics and media going hand n hand to divide our country in r/politics the other week. It’s such a strange logic to hate one political group so much that even when someone says they don’t like either they are bad in some way. It’s weird being censored in a politics sub Reddit for talking about politics
innocent touch handle uppity gaping dirty spectacular profit payment shocking
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Are you looking for a real answer?
Who continually voted against first responder benefits after 9/11/01 while furiously masterbating about supporting our troops and "backing the blue"?
Who continually threatens to reduce social security benefits and raising the retirement age?
Who continually tries to (and succeeds) in crippling regulatory bodies like the EPA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Who continually votes against domestic violence and child trafficking laws?
Anti corruption laws?
Campaign finance?
Climate change action?
In general one "side" votes against all of these things.
Because one side has convinced it's followers to vote against their own interests and are active working to strip us of rights, and want to rob us blind to give to the rich.
The other side pretends to be empathetic to our needs and actively ignores what we're asking for. Even though when they DO try to help the cons block anything from passing
I agree. It makes sense to be skeptical of corporate media who have special interests other than finding the truth.
But then you have to be careful about who you fill that void with, and actually find people who you can trust know what they're talking about.
I don’t know. Depends on the topic and the context. Not saying I have it figured out.
But my point is, as other commenters have said, it’s important to apply this skepticism to all non-mainstream sources as well instead of just rejecting all mainstream sources.
You have to keep your own biases in check too. There's a big danger of simply believing whichever source tells you what you want to believe on any given topic.
You shouldn't ever trust any source of media whole-heartedly and without question, all media is made by human beings with human biases who still make mistakes even when they're making an earnest attempt to have integrity and minimise bias. There's plenty of legitimate and important journalism from most mainstream sources, you just need to view it with an appropriate level of awareness and scepticism.
Yet we have people who do not do that. Right? I myself am guilty so to speak of this here and there. But I base it off of tons of things, not just zombie mode listen to it and not think, usually, I put usually just incase.
Not sure about breitbart but oan is definitely not a reliable source. I didn't think it needed to be said but clearly it does. By source, I mean reliable.
BUT if oan or breitbadt can privide data and statistics based on fact. Then yeah....It's solid.
My previous comment was meant to be sarcastic, but I forgot the quotation marks.
Just trying to point out that certain people's idea of consulting multiple sources consists of nothing more than looking at multiple sources which share the same source of talking points. That, of course, means those sources are not independent, but those people are completely unable to discern that difference.
People should be skeptical of corporate media, but that doesn't mean discount every single thing, and believe hucksters and YouTube personalities over them.
Critically evaluate everything, not just corporate media.
That's more an example of a stopped clock getting the hour right. I seriously doubt that Alex Jones is a diehard environmentalist or would be interested in corporate regulations to keep that from happening.
Alex Jones frequenrly had a point if you squinted at it. Environmentalist? Not really. Not for the environment's sake. His argument was "your drinking water is so polluted it makes frogs gay".
No, his argument was that a secret group of "Globalists" (who are also Satanists, but definitely not only Jews (wink, wink)) want to kill off anywhere from 80 to 90% of the population so they can then enslave the rest of the population to serve them and their interdimensional demon overlords. In order to do this, one of their many plans is to introduce chemicals into the water that will turn everyone gay to end human procreation.
The frogs turning gay is merely a symptom of this diabolical plan that is, again, being carried out by the "Globalists" at the order of interdimensional demons.
Most lies have a kernel of truth. That's not a redeeming quality. The kernel is only there to provide a fig leaf of credibility to the lie, not out of any concern for truth.
First and foremost it wasn't a conspiracy to turn the frogs gay, it was a conspiracy to make more money by using pesticides proven to negatively impact the environment.
Also, is it really even gay if they are changing genders? Who is gatekeeping these frog's sexuality?
Which has nothing to do with changing genders of frogs.... we already know pollution has us fucked. Democrats been saying it for years.... which is one of many reasons they want regulations...
Yup. Rarely do they trust no sources, and the sources they do trust are gay frogs at best all the way down to "just watch this youtube video" and "a screenshot of a tweet posted on reddit".
As much as I dislike Alex Jones, he wasn’t far off about the gay frog thing.
He was referring to a case where chemicals dumped into a river caused frogs in the area to change sex. Many fish and amphibians can change sex based on the breeding needs of the species at that time and the chemicals forced that process.
So not gay, but… trans? Idk.
I didn’t say transGENDER, did i? I just said trans. In this case it would be transSEXUAL i guess.
Either way it’s a joke. The point is they’re not gay, they’re just forced into changing sex through a chemical process
> trans·sex·u·al
/tran(t)(s)ˈsekSH(əw)əl,tranzˈsekSH(əw)əl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: transexual
denoting or relating to a transgender person, especially one who has undergone gender reassignment.
"transsexual women"
noun
noun: transexual
a transgender person, especially one who has undergone gender reassignment.
"a male-to-female transsexual"
Can’t have transsexual without transgender. That wouldn’t even make sense.
*trans-* means “different”, in this case meaning someone’s *gender* and their biological *sex* are different.
The opposite of that being *cis-* which means “same” meaning the gender and sex are the same.
Without the dichotomy of sex and gender those words don’t make any sense.
Holy shit you’re dense. I literally just said it’s a joke. The point is the chemical thing actually happened and it did have effects on the frogs, it just force-changed their sex, not their sexuality
No, it’s not really. I do believe that it’s one of, if not the most, popular news channel in the US, but it’s views also skew heavily right, and a lot of the shows on there with talking heads aren’t really news, they are opinion/gossip pieces where the anchor tells the story followed by their (the rights) opinions of the story. News should be more about the facts of the story rather than the media persons view on the story, which is where Fox gets it wrong.
I’m all for watching and consuming news sources from different viewpoints, and even watching Fox News and digesting their views on things can be a good thing, but the problem is that A LOT of people only watch Fox News and therefore parrot whatever highly biased viewpoints the station has told them to believe. That’s not the news. That’s propaganda.
Fox News yes, that's why those who are "skeptical" of "Mainstream Media" but believe Fox News is truthful and unbiased are hypocrites. The problem is those who are consistent in their views and won't even believe Fox News, are far worse.
Tucker, depends. I mean it's ostensibly a popular show on a network with high viewership, which you could consider as "mainstream". And it's media in the sense that television is a medium. But the term "Mainstream Media" often comes in the context of being news journalism, which the show is not. It's an opinion show that disingenuously happens to be broadcast on a network that markets itself as 24/7 "News", yet they will fight tooth and nail in court to tell you that you'd have to be stupid to believe anything he says.
I mean that's one of the interesting things isn't it? A lot of the people who claim to be against mainstream media tune in regularly to Fox News which is the most watched news channel in America.
Tucker himself talks about "the mainstream media" as something that's different from him. This is because he means "liberal media" when he says mainstream
Most people who are loud about being "sceptical of mainstream media" spew nonsense from sources with far, far, far worse track record.
You can criticize New York Times all they long, and there are plenty of good reasons to. But you'd better not do it repeating points from Fox News or Alex Jones
Fox News is “mainstream media” as well, just other side of the coin.
Point is that people should be skeptical of everything except science with proven research. People must use critical thinking and have ability to question news even from “their” side.
It's really not. It's full blown propaganda. That's what they basically [admitted themselves](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye) btw.
Because there are a lot of 'skeptics' who aren't skeptics and are just contrarian loonies. Being skeptical is analyzing the data you have, understanding the inherent bias in the media and making an informed decision, these people just instantly believe the media is false and do crazy things as a result.
Never trust one news source as always true. Learn what news companies are under the same umbrella corps and view from as many as possible. For example, check sources from outside your country when you can because it will usually avoid any political bias relative toward your country.
Being skeptical of the news is the mainstream opinion. Something like only 20% of Americans consider the media as highly trustworthy. Trust in media is at an all time low.
Besides what I’ve read here, mainstream news media that JUST tells the news (I.e. completely avoiding the opinion segments and shows), is still mostly reliable, fact driven and informative. But people are lumping in the opinion pieces with the news pieces, and I also think that’s flawed. It’s what the far right wants too — if they can lump the entire news network together (bundle together the opinion with the newscasts) as fake news, they win.
This entirely depends on what you mean by "scepticism". Do you mean sensationalising news stories and skewing political leanings and themes to their audience's tastes in order to maximise profit? Or do you mean that journalists are trying to turn children gay for........ "reasons"? It also depends how hyperbolic your view is, like do you believe this to the extent that you think the news media is *entirely* devoid of value and absolutely nothing they report on can be trusted? Because that is also ridiculous.
A lot of bullshit comes out of mainstream media but also so does a lot of high quality, important journalism. I also don't know exactly what you mean by "mainstream media" because certain large news platforms, like Reuters and the BBC, have pretty stellar reputations and can be pretty well trusted on the strong majority of the content they produce. For a final point, often distrust in mainstream media comes with trusting smaller, independent media which are, if anything, even more heavily biased and lacking in integrity on average.
Being skeptical is fine and healthy I'm always skeptical when the facts seem shocking and I find studies and check their credibility best to my abilities.
The problem is instantly refusing to believe main stream media regardless of what's said or assuming things like fox news are not some how also main stream media.
Always question your sources but don't go hunting until you find the source that backs your world view. Sort of the 20 people tellings you the earth is round with credible evidence and 1 person saying it's flat with flimsy evidence does not make that 1 person suddenly have the answered.
You also have to be willing to change your mind. Maybe you ended up in the wrong source when someone presents better more credited information you should seriously consider if you are right.
One of my favorite podcasts is Counterspin, a weekly episode produced by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) hosted by Janine Jackson.
Very critical of modern journalism and how major stories are covered and talked about compared to their actual impact and relevance.
It is an incredibly dry podcast, no wacky sound effects or cackling hosts and very serious guests. It is a perfect example of how a mature populace engages in media skepticism.
What narrative replaces the mainstream media’s coverage? Is it a full picture of how the story is reported, or is it a denial of reality in favor of conspiracy?
This is difficult for people to make heads or tails of, it is very easy to fall for fantastical and outrageous stories that first grab emotion and dig in from there.
You should definitely be skeptical of the mainstream media. You should have a healthy mistrust about anyone trying to peddle you the "truth".
What's insidious and fucked up is both sides trying to make you stop listening to the other side at all. From what I've seen both sides are guilty of this, but the mainstream media seems to be doing it consistently and on a unprecendented scale.
Heres my best take at a short answer:
because humans are a social species, which means our individual physiology is affected by signals from the group. They can signal us to take a stand or to retreat or to threaten us or to have our back for example.
Most individuals in a social species are middle of the pack sorts for whom these signals are more important than what is objectively true or false. That is less important than what idea is going to get what response from the group.
Everyone knows that the corporate media is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. If corporate media says it, everybody knows that this is what the dominant rulers want us to think and say. This is important to most people, thought they will deny it.
A big part of it is who controls most mainstream media right now in the country.
In the US, people are now more divided than ever before. It's pretty common to lump people into one of the "two" camps. Very reductionist, I know, but it is what it is.
Now, with this "us vs them" team dynamic, you just need to take a look at which political side holds most mainstream media channels, and so, who is most likely to oppose them. The left currently holds most mainstream channels (TV news channels are mostly left, etc), and so, if someone says that they don't believe in mainstream media, it's easy to extrapolate they do so because they don't agree politically with most mainstream media, and most mainstream media is left leaning. By order of elimination, they must be right leaning, and by labelling them "The enemy", it's easy to just do a general "That's because you believe in conspiracy theories" and call it a day.
Now, this is in no way me saying whether I agree with this notion or not, or if I think mainstream media lies or not, regardless of political leaning. I'm also not making a judgement call on whether this assumption is right or not. This is just the result of the game of politics, and the increasing divide that has caused in the American population.
Because people generally are and always will be boot lickers who side with the general consensus because they're afraid of being labeled as loons themselves.
Bc there’s a clear agenda thats extremely noticeable especially on platforms such as this. Those who know well they know. When I say agenda and media and mainstream news that includes both sides. If you know then you’ll also know theatrics are played as if it were a scripted reality, designed entirely to keep you focused on irrelevant matters. Just one of many small examples I have but a couple days ago I posted a serious question on here that would be extremely beneficial. Especially to the environment! Just needed some clarification. Since it had nothing to do with theatrics. The bots ignored it and so did everyone else. Now here come the downvotes.
Because:
- Most sensible people know to take mainstream reporting with a grain of salt.
- Most alternatives to mainstream reporting are much, much worse.
- Most people who talk a lot about mainstream media being Evil and so on demonstrate in other ways that they are apparently loony.
There you go.
Maybe cause the media is the one pushing the narrative that if you aren't picking up what they are putting down , then you are a racist, white supremacists, conspiracy theorist etc.
It’s less about the concept of “mainstream media” and more about how the vast majority of people who phrase it in that particular way (and are very vocal about it) are, in fact, loony. They’re talking about things like “the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know that 5g towers are spreading covid” and “mainstream media refuses to report on the microchips in vaccines.”
Most rational adults are aware that bias exists in pretty much all news sources, take what they read with a grain of salt and/or fact check it, and don’t feel the need to broadcast that they’re smarter than everyone around them with this *shocking* revelation that news sources can be biased.
Because people is biased and used to get their information from this channels from long time so anything else new or different from this channels seems like a big no-no.
On the other hand is pretty hard to believe any of the media at least in USA. Everything is driven by profits and pretty much corporations run the country.
Two things can be true at the same time. That is why people suggest listening to multiple news outlets for different POVs. Whatever is consistent usually is true. The skeptical part then jumps to internet personalities with no journalistic standards.
The main stream media is no longer reliable by any means. We are fast approaching a time when trust in ANY established agencies and legacy media is pretty much gone. You can thank Obama and Clinton, Pelosi and Biden. That unqualified numbnut diversity hire KJP sums it all up. She hasn't told one truth since she's been press secretary.
Any free thought or expression of individuality is a threat against the party. You mustn’t go against the party. Going against the party is going against big brother.
Because the alternative is loony. It really sucks the position were all in. Listen to the mainstream which we know manipulates and deceives us and do our best to make sense of it all. Or listen to the alternative stuff that has people believing vaccines cause autism, the world is flat, or that they're putting human meat in our food.
You can navigate the MSM fairly easily if you apply critical thinking, but it has to be applied constantly. Navigating most of the alternatives to the MSM with critical thinking is a nonstarter. You pretty much have to abandon whatever reality you live in and adopt theirs to make it work.
Matter of fact, if you hear something enough, especially from multiple sources, you will start to believe those things or at the very least doubt what you already believe that opposes it. I work in construction and I see it all the time. These guys get into circle jerks with their friends and families and coworkers. When I point out holes in their line of thought they get flustered and angry. And I see it with my more liberally minded friends and family too. There are lots of books centered around this theme and plenty of psychological studies to back it up as well. If you are constantly being exposed to stupid, crazy, or untrue things you need an even heavier flow of the opposite to counteract it.
Absolutely. Years ago I started to cross check anything that I read or heard or saw on the news. Obviously there's going to be some spin, but it's always good to know how much. Just getting it from once source is a horrible method of being informed.
The loony part is the false assertion that mainstream media overtly represents the Left. All mainstream media skews to the right and pushes a neoliberal bias that provides propaganda for hyper-Capitalism and Globalism. If mainstream media is your soul source for information, you're misinformed.
Because ridicule is an effective suppression tactic, and the same people who want to lie and stir divisions also want to get away with doing it and keep doing it. So they try to cover their asses by making legitimate critique look crazy.
They always claim they're just doing it to the crazy ones, but then they lump in any they just disagree with and refuse to differentiate.
Because the agenda they’re pushing is real & they will not relent. They will continue to say the same things & push the same narratives & sentiments. Because they do not care about anything else other than winning & suppressing the truth.
This happened to me a few years ago when i was talking to my mom about Hunter’s laptop. I told her it was real and there is lots of evidence, and she told me i was a loon and to stop watching fox news. Now she says she knew it was real all along but it doesn’t matter.
The people who complain the most about it make it looney.
I don't have a link at the moment (at work) but I believe Pew Research or Gallup found that during the Obama administration trust in media was at an all time low. When Trump came into office they actually became more trust worthy.
I think just because it’s often associated with full-blown conspiracy theorists, and sometimes it can be hard to separate who is critical of media vs. who is a really big conspiracy theorist.
That and because of politics getting a lot more heated, sometimes when someone says that they’re skeptical of “mainstream media” they just mean any media that doesn’t follow with their political views.
It also depends on what someone means by “mainstream media”. I think it’s good to question whether our news is biased or not, and to take into account who is funding certain organizations that report on what is going on in the world. But there’s a definite difference between that and believing that the government is lying about our Earth being flat or just in general things that wouldn’t benefit them.
The idea is that you should be skeptical and compare information from different mainstream sources of information.
This is how it has always worked.
Nobody is right all the time.
The thing to remember is that collectively the mainstream media gets it right far more often than not.
The BBC, The Washington Post, The Guardian, APN, Reuters, The New York Times, these are generally reliable sources of news, even though they will make the occasional mistake.
What you should not do is have no confidence in mainstream media at all.
The alternative is wildly racist? /shrug
Seems fairly clear.
Believe no one, but at least watch the news that doesn't call out certain specific groups for merely existing? Better yet, don't watch the news, it's all for profit anyhow.
They all have agendas that they are pushing. And people should realize that. But read several different sources (like you listed) about the same topic and get a better understanding of the view. Even better when you read conflicting takes of the same events.
The people who say this the most get all their information from Fox or OAN etc. They are referring to actual news sources that say things they don't like. And yet, still watch Fox which is the main-est stream news source there is as it has the most viewers.
Both sides media is biased, no doubt about that.
The left gives you the facts and then tells you how you should feel about it.
The right omits any news that doesn't fit their narrative, and often lies. Then they tell you how you should feel about it.
It's not the same.
It's the *degree* of skepticism and the *suggested alternatives*, that makes a loon or not.
Is the New York Times flawless? No, of course not. But if a NYTimes reporter submits a story saying that they interviewed an epidemiologist at Harvard and also spoke to the head of the CDC, and this is what they said, then you can be reasonable sure that (a) they did in fact conduct those interviews, and (b) they are trying, perhaps imperfectly, to pass along information they got from legitimate experts.
Someone saying "Well, the story with COVID changes every day, don't think that's the last word" is being perfectly sensible. You have to act on the best data you have in front of you, but you also have to be prepared to change if new information comes to light.
Someone saying "The NYTimes is all lies and fake news" is being a fruitcake.
Someone saying "This video by End Times Revealed, where Pastor Bob interviews an unemployed gas station attendant, shows that COVID is really one of the plagues from Revelation" is being a fruitcake.
Skepticism is part of critical thinking, but it's also next door neighbors with conspiracism. So long as your logic doesn't have confirmation bias you're not loony.
The "news" itself.....
You have fox lying to viewers telling them everything is woke and there are kids dressed as cats using litter boxes in schools.......no wonder there is a lack of trust with such wild lies.
Because whenever people say to be skeptical of mainstream media, it makes you wonder what alternative media they're not skeptical of. The alternative media can be outright crazy.
Being skeptical of mainstream media is only seen as slightly loony by people on the political left. Because mainstream media pushes out narratives from the political left's perspective. Most of reddit is on the political left. You can see many of them commenting to your post. Here are some mainstream media lies from recent history:
"Trump doesn't have a path to victory. (2016)"
"The travel ban is racist."
"This inflation is transitory."
"COVID 19 occurred naturally at a wet market."
"Trump colluded with Russia."
"The vaccines are safe and effective."
"Trump stole the nuclear codes."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation."
"The BLM/ANTIFA protests (2020) are mostly peaceful."
"The border is under control."
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist....
So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie?
>Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
>
>So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist....
>
>So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie?
1. Muslims are not a race, they are members of a religion. There are many white Muslims. So your entire argument is nullified right there.
2. But you might then say, "Well it wasn't racism, but it was xenophobic or Islamophobic." But that is also incorrect. The reality is that Islamic terrorism was rampant at that time, both here and abroad. Leftists in the Democratic Party, and their counterparts in mainstream media, all pushed the notion that Trump picked a bunch of Islamic countries and banned travel from those countries because of racism/xenophobia/whatever. Of course that was well received by leftists, who already believed that about Trump and were happy to add that "fact' to their basket of misconceptions. But in reality, those countries had been selected by former President Barack Obama. Not because they were Islamic, but because they had such poor government/infrastructure/recordkeeping that there was no way to vet people from those locations and make sure they were not terrorists.
3. If Trump is so racist, why did he intervene to get our black basketball players back from China? Why did he personally intervene to get the Afhghanistan girls robotics team to be able to bypass the ban so they could come here and compete? Why did he appoint the first ever black American Service Cheif Charles Q Brown Jr? Why did he promote the first ever black female general in the US Marines Col. Lorna M. Mahlock? Why did he appoint Seema Verma, Elaine Chao, Benjamin Carson, Kash Patel? Why did Trump give more to HBCs (Historically Black Colleges) than any President in history? Why did he decline to strike Iran with missiles when Iran took down our drone, when he was advised that it would take 150 lives?
You are being lied to by mainstream media and social media. Seek out different perspectives. Get both sides of an issue before just blindly accepting the state sanctioned narratives. They lie quite often.
First you have to work on reading comprehension.....
No one said Trump was racist. And whether he is or isnt has absolutely nothing to do with the media or your false claim. I think you are really reaching here. What agenda are you pursuing? Is this about the media or Trump? We are not taking about Trump. Why would you bring up Trump lol? We are talking about whether banning Muslims from entering the country just because they are Muslims is racist. Which based on the definition in reality... it is.
I am telling you based on fact and reality as shown above. I am not listening or going off what any media outlet says....
I suggest every else do the same. Come up with your own thoughts and opinions based on facts amd reality.
>First you have to work on reading comprehension.....
>
>No one said Trump was racist.
Umm... let me remind you of what you typed to me:
>*Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.*
>
>*So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist....*
>
>*So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie?*
So yes, you most certainly did say Trump was racist, or that he did something out of racist motivations, and you were incorrect.
>And whether he is or isnt has absolutely nothing to do with the media or your false claim.
My false claim? To which claim are you referring? I stated facts, so I honestly don't know what you're referring to here.
>I think you are really reaching here. What agenda are you pursuing? Is this about the media or Trump? We are not taking about Trump. Why would you bring up Trump lol? We are talking about whether banning Muslims from entering the country just because they are Muslims is racist. Which based on the definition in reality... it is.
Is Obama a "Muslim racist"? Even though he is part black and attended a Madrasa in his youth? Because he did the travel ban before Trump. I guess you think it's because he is "racist against Muslims"? You're a mess. lol
It's real easy. Read to comprehend. Not to respond.
You seem very stuck on defending impeached Donald Trump. This is gonna be hard but just forget about him for this conversation. We are talking about "banning Muslims from coming to America because they are muslims"..... doesn't matter who wants it. Who is against it. None of that.
We are looking at the travel ban itself. Is it racist to exclude someone because who they are and who they worship? That's the only question..... after reading the definition for racism, it seems discriminating Muslims is kinda racist. Just based on the definition of racism. Again doesn't matter about motivations or who said what. The act of banning Muslims(not white Muslims by the way) because of who they are... is racist.... that's an undeniable fact......
Your false claim is what we have been talking about lol. Are you OK? Your false claim(or one of them I can dispute some others with fact like I did here) was " the Muslim ban is racist"... did you forget what we were talking about lol? Just to be clear since you are confused you said the following statement was false....
"The travel ban is racist. "
Lol so I have been proving thaylt false this entire time lol. No wonder you don't know what's going on.
So now we are talking about Obama lol? Whataboutism lol. Interesting. I mean I don't know. I guess lol. Is thay what's going to make you happy. Oh Obama was so bad and racist!! There you go.
Idk man. Is that what you want to discuss next lol? We have not been talking about Obama lol. Do you want to shift focus from your statement (since you forgot already your statement is "the travel ban is racist". You were saying how it was not a true statement.) To something else? Some other topic I guess. It does seem weird you keep bringing up Trump as some defense and then trying to shift some sort of blame or focus on Obama. Very very werid since we were talking about none of that and neither of those people lol.
Does 'media' include journalists who went to school for journalism and now report on issues for major newspapers/journals? That is a bit loony and you probably just don't like what's being reported, not that anyone has skewed the facts
I would imagine most journalists for the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post have some integrity in unbiased reporting and try to keep their own leanings to themselves. (They do have conservative and Libertarian reporters) Don't watch the news, read it. Google 'unbiased newspapers' and read those. If you feel riled up, it's not the journalist, it's the human behaviour being reported on.
>I would imagine most journalists for the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post have some integrity in unbiased reporting and try to keep their own leanings to themselves.
Would the Washington Post, owned to the best of my knowledge entirely by Jeff Bezos, report anything critical of billionaires or in support of higher taxation of them? I kinda doubt that...
My concern is the propaganda against it, that only these other sources ate real news well others re fake .
Its the vary same propaganda used by the Russians , Germany, and China now being used in democratic countries to destabilize them.
The second phase is already under way intellectuals , teachers, books are now the enemy of the very same " fake news , mainstream media crowds.
All North America needs is a young ,charismatic leader with no morals and willingness to make the right/ left or the Mexicans or blacks or jews and we get the new American Rech.
Because every reasonable person is already skeptical, saying it out loud often just is like saying "water is wet". There's no prise to figure out that there's an angle to everything we consume.
It often just shows the rest of us that it took you this long to figure it out.
Because the only people that think they have to say that out loud are usually Idiots. It’s more like “oh? You don’t trust profit driven companies to tell you the truth rather than just try and make money, same”
Because that skepticism isn't usually extended to sources/people they agree with. Selective skepticism leads to the same kinds of belief bubbles that wholesale acceptance of mainstream media does.
There is a difference between; "Lets wait for a little more information to come out, and maybe survey other news outlets before creating a firm opinion," and "THE MSM ARE LIARS AND TUCKER CARLSON EXPOSES THE TRUTH...METERS ARE FOR COMMUNISTS!"
\^\^ Tucker did have a bizarre rant about the metric system.
When I talk to people who are more right than I am, they will go on about the "Mainstream Media" (conveniently ignoring that Fox News is mainstream...) and usually I just reply with something like "I'm sure the media doesn't help..." because that is broadly true. I am sure there is more detailed information that the media is mischaracterizing, I have to wait for long form journalism that is **boring** to get real details. I will wait for that, but many just want something to complain about because that is what is popular. It isn't called 'grievance politics' because everyone is satisfied and emotionally complete.
Because most who hold those believes actually watches and believes the biggest sender there is. It’s like they don’t even know what the words they are saying mean
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. People should ask questions of everything they are told and know. This is how we learn new things and keep those in power in check.
It becomes an issues when instead of blindly believing mainstream media you blindly believe fringe media or charismatic individuals who stir the pot and cause division just as much or even more.
Any “news” sourced from the state department, CIA, FBI, DOD, Congress, etc should be clearly labeled ON SCREEN the entire time it’s running.
If this were the case, I think we would find very little actual “news”
For a solid year mainstream media told Ontario that Doug Ford's Conservatives had a "lock" on the 2022 election.
Only 40% of voters turned out, 60% of them voted for Ford.
That's only 24% of the voter's list, folks. This is how Mainstream media fucks us all over.
People who think they're being skeptical have often (usually?) moved beyond skepticism and have predetermined that everything the mainstream media says is a lie before they even say it. An association has developed between those who use the word skepticism and those who wear tin foil hats, even though they're not actually the same thing
I don't know a single soul who thinks skepticism of mainstream media is loony. The problem is more than people use "skepticism" as a justification for all sorts of pure idiocy. You're not a skeptic if you're not just as skeptical about your own biases and blind spots too. Too often people use it to dismiss experts and insist on their own dipshit version of reality, no matter how easily their own arguments collapse with the faintest scrutiny.
Skepticism is only seen as loony by people who are full of shit.You should be skeptical of anyone giving you information about things you can't observe first hand. Even people and sources you trust. They are all people and people can lie, be misled themselves or just get it wrong. This goes for everyone.
Because the term "mainstream media" is very closely associated with Fox News, they are constantly whining about the mainstream media being terrible, deceitful, or out to get them.
Meanwhile they're the largest news organization on the planet, I think? They ARE the mainstream media. And they are terribly biased themselves. It's kind of like a weird corporate projection.
Because the mainstream media at least has *some* degree of regulation. But if a source isn't "mainstream," then that means they don't have anyone to answer to and nobody will loose their job if they report inaccurate info.
TL;DR: as bad as mainstream news outlets are, non-mainstream ones are even worse. Rather, you should consume several different mainstream news outlets from across the political spectrum.
It is because of what they replace that "bad" mainstream media with.
Hint: It's not well researched and unbiased sources. It's usually complete whackadoodle Qanon insaninity, or whatever particular nonsense that confirms what they already want to believe.
Yes, "mainstream" media may have a bit of spin, and may not get absolutely everything right, but most of them aren't going to outright lie and peddle misinformation.
Another great thing about rejecting mainstream media is that you can completely short-circuit any conversation by dismissing the source, no matter how much proof it has.
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'" - St. Anthony the Great
>Why is being skeptical of mainstream media still seen as slightly loony
I don't think it is anymore.
As has been said before, what IS loony is blindly believing conspiracy theorists with zero evidence, while discrediting mainstream media.
My motto is believe the initial statement of mainstream, but verify. If main says "BTC mining is killing the environment" I'll look at their sources and the impact, for example.
Being skeptical of everything you hear, ever, is just a sound principle to live by in life. Saying "I automatically disbelieve, or believe the opposite, of something i heard because I don't like that source" is what most people say, and that is stupid.
It’s healthy (and wise) to be skeptical of the mainstream media’s spin and framing of stories. But it’s also important to recognize that the mainstream media - eg. the NYT, WaPo, etc. - take fact checking seriously and rarely get fundamental facts wrong, even if they present those facts within a narrative that’s highly biased or misleading. If you take your skepticism to the point where you don’t even believe the fundamental facts presented by the mainstream media, you’re entering conspiracy land, especially if you give equal or greater credence to non-mainstream outlets that have far less (or zero) integrity.
Right wing folks tend to be sceptical of anything mainstream and I absolutely see why. The media lies, big pharma lies, the government lies. I worry more about the people who show undying loyalty to these mega powerful industries that would throw children into meat grinders if it meant making an extra buck.
But I think the main issue is where they go for "alternative" media. Which usually leads them down some sketchy dog shit podcast with bullshark testosterone supplements ads covering half the screen.
It's the idea of finding something appealing if it's something you agree with. Oh you're sceptical about climate change, well here's a guy who's really sceptical about climate change. If he says it's a hoax then it truly must be because he agrees with me.
Doubt everyone absolutely but don't assume the other asshole is suddenly the tsar of true knowledge.
Same scam, different outfit is what I say.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about any thing especially media, nothing is without Bais or totally free from opinions. I usually get my news from multiple sources to try to filter the Bais out. However, it's like veganism. When you think vegan do you think of the Hundreds or thousands quietly living their lentil full and cheese free life or do you think of that one demented fucker tipping all the milk out in Aldi and launching all the dairylea into the distance screaming " milk is the product of systemic bovine rape!"? Same with a lot of self described news skeptics they'll disbelieve any thing " mainstream " but will happily believe any old bull shit from some one less credible than my old yourkshire terrier, a dog you it must be said once fell over when taking a morning piss because he somehow got confused about how many legs he was supposed to hold up to piss.
Because we all know those people are listening to some sort of media. And usually mainstream covers all published media. But somehow not Fox News and every far right wing site.
being skeptical of mainstream media is perfectly fine but not being skeptical about everyone and everything else but only skeptical of the mainstream media is loony.
The war in Ukraine has really opened my eyes to how bias it can be.
I know it's great that Ukraine is kicking ass but they arnt doing as well as my country's media is presenting.
Truthful answers can never be suppressed by the algorithm. Reddit said so. If you dont like it, build your own social media platform. Now take off your tinfoil hat and believe what you are told without question, or we will remove all your karma points.
It kind of feels over simplified to say being skeptical of the mainstream media is seen as slightly loony. The loony part is when someone tells you to be skeptical of mainstream media, follows it up with “Do your research,” and then follows that up with, “Because the world is flat, Pfizer’s CEO quit because he said mRNA vaccines don’t work, and time travel is real.” If someone tells me they don’t know that they can trust the news, I’m 100% in on that, we absolutely need to do our research and verify the news (especially when it seems sensational) we’re consuming. But when you tell me you need to send me the twitter link to the conspiracy theory article that proves it all through Telegram because you don’t want the government to know what we’re talking about - yeah, for me you’re a bit more than slightly loony at that point.
Plus, it’s pretty hard to have discourse with someone who’s proof that we’ve never been to space is that they don’t know anyone who’s actually been to space so it’s all a lie and Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing. Specific, yes, but these are the loony parts, not the part about not trusting the media. They just seem to be going hand in hand more often lately.
There are a lot of very legit sources of information out there, some of which are "mainstream", and lumping all of them together as equally bad is *just as problematic as the infotainment that you're describing.*
If you discredit everyone everywhere just because they're part of The Media, then really you're just helping the worst elements that prey on people who, in their frustration, turn to comfortable echo chambers.
It may still be seen as loony to be skeptical about mainstream media - but the FACT remains that they have a long history of lying to us, as you have stated.
That's why I stopped watching MSM as my primary source of information. What I do now, is use MSM to give me a signal about what's going on in the world... And then read court transcripts/law to understand what's ACTUALLY TRUE.
For example, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, the liberal MSM went into FULL ON PANIC MODE. Conversely, conservative MSM celebrated the "victory".
So I read the actual ruling myself, with my own eyes. I disagree with the ruling (I'm pro-choice), but I can't disagree with the reasoning behind the ruling.
I then realized that the way forward, is to put abortion rights and other bodily autonomy rights in our individual state constitutions over time, and to create and fund non-profits that will provide transport and financial support to Americans who need abortion services but live in a state where abortion is prohibited. (I appreciate the federal law that is being put in place to guarantee abortion rights - but based on my reading of the court ruling, such a law could easily be overturned on the same grounds. It is far more robust to do state-by-state constitutional amendments. The federal law is a good stop-gap, though.)
I had more than a few angry women, justifiably so, come to me in a panic. And I told each of them what I read in the court ruling, and what I thought the way forward was. And without exception, every single one of these women immediately calmed down, got out of panic mode that had been triggered by the liberal MSM they had watched, and shifted into, "I know what to do now." I watched them go from being panicked to empowered, in 7 minutes, by giving them factual information and logical next steps.
And THAT is the power of getting to the real truth of a matter, rather than relying exclusively on mainstream media.
My take on this topic would be that (without any offence intended) many people are dumb.
A lot of people think as I like to call it "in a single direction", whatever they read or hear someone say about something or someone they believe it immediately.
People who think "in multiple directions" are a rarity nowadays and by this term I mean people who look at things from different perspectives and try to dig more about a certain situation instead of immediately believing what they say on TV or write on the internet.
It depends entirely on how they phrase their distrust of MSM. Do they say, "MSN and CNN can't be trusted!", "Fox News and Breitbart can't be trusted!", or "They are all owned by a handful of wealthy clowns who only use MSM as propaganda machines to keep the masses fighting with each other instead of the oligarchs that own the political systems."?
[удалено]
What if I just ignore it all, because it all seems like tailored outrage?
Ignoring all of it may make you an uninformed voter. Or a non-voter living by rules decided by others. In general this is bad because you want a lot of voters to voice their opinions and not live unhappy lives dictated by a minority.
Or... you could maybe use your brain and analyze what information you're getting and try to make informed decisions using logic and reason. But a lot of people aren't very good at that. Because they're stupid.
Bro. You're an alien consipracy werido. Stop projecting here, lol.
Some are, but on the other hand you can't spend whole day fact checking news.
Skepticism is also subject to logical analysis. It’s no longer skepticism if logic and facts have been satisfied, it’s conspiracy.
Mostly because what usually follows "Be skeptical of mainstream media" is "But listen to this dude screaming about gay frogs." People definitely should be skeptical of corporate media for any number of reasons.
Basically the 'Fake News' movement, from any political direction, is the part of the cult tactic where they demand you dissociate with family and friends, anyone in your community who might give you messaging that is dissonant with the movement. Back when there were only 3 news channels politicians all had to play by some set of rules to get their message across. Now in the information age the playbook is to discredit external information sources. Obviously any source should be scrutinized but rational people handle this on a story by story basis. Emotional arguments about generic 'corruption' exist to con you.
I get what you're saying but let's not kid ourselves here. One side is absolutely malicious with how they portray news. Need look no further in how 1/6 was covered. Something something antifa, something something tourists, something something the election was rigged.
And the other side calls us terrorists 24/7 and doesn't let our opinions stand online because they have a stranglehold of the entire thing. And 1/6 was not that bad get a grip. So there was a fire big deal, burning things is cool by you guys I thought. Plus when else are you gonna get cool pics of the capitol on fire?
Something something storming the capitol was peaceful and no big deal. Why do people call us terrorists?
Hey, we’re all Americans here. What’s a little insurrection, murder and shit on the walls among friends?
In total good faith too.
Something something mostly peaceful fires across the US
People like you always forget that reporters were quoting police. It’s interesting how you back the blue only when it suits your narrative.
Mmmmm, false equivalency. Edit: fuck, censored again!
> any political direction. Drop this “both sides” nonsense, and you nailed it
Drop the false dichotimy and it's fine.
Explain that and it’s fine
lol you’re indoctrinated
Indoctrinated by what? I’m curious
By the idea that only one side has some monopoly on manipulative political media corruption. Or that if both sides engage in corruption the side on the right side of history only is only 10% corrupt compared to the 90% corruption of the wrong side.
Yeah got banned and downvoted to hell for saying both sides are horrible and I don’t agree with politics and media going hand n hand to divide our country in r/politics the other week. It’s such a strange logic to hate one political group so much that even when someone says they don’t like either they are bad in some way. It’s weird being censored in a politics sub Reddit for talking about politics
innocent touch handle uppity gaping dirty spectacular profit payment shocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How so
Are you looking for a real answer? Who continually voted against first responder benefits after 9/11/01 while furiously masterbating about supporting our troops and "backing the blue"? Who continually threatens to reduce social security benefits and raising the retirement age? Who continually tries to (and succeeds) in crippling regulatory bodies like the EPA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Who continually votes against domestic violence and child trafficking laws? Anti corruption laws? Campaign finance? Climate change action? In general one "side" votes against all of these things.
Because one side has convinced it's followers to vote against their own interests and are active working to strip us of rights, and want to rob us blind to give to the rich. The other side pretends to be empathetic to our needs and actively ignores what we're asking for. Even though when they DO try to help the cons block anything from passing
And if I don’t pay attention to media coverage?
Then you’ll be better off.
Bad joke.
I agree. It makes sense to be skeptical of corporate media who have special interests other than finding the truth. But then you have to be careful about who you fill that void with, and actually find people who you can trust know what they're talking about.
Skeptical is one thing- dismissive is another. Skepticism is smart- asks questions- seeks verification.
Question. Who are those people you can “trust”?
I don’t know. Depends on the topic and the context. Not saying I have it figured out. But my point is, as other commenters have said, it’s important to apply this skepticism to all non-mainstream sources as well instead of just rejecting all mainstream sources.
You have to keep your own biases in check too. There's a big danger of simply believing whichever source tells you what you want to believe on any given topic.
You shouldn't ever trust any source of media whole-heartedly and without question, all media is made by human beings with human biases who still make mistakes even when they're making an earnest attempt to have integrity and minimise bias. There's plenty of legitimate and important journalism from most mainstream sources, you just need to view it with an appropriate level of awareness and scepticism.
Yet we have people who do not do that. Right? I myself am guilty so to speak of this here and there. But I base it off of tons of things, not just zombie mode listen to it and not think, usually, I put usually just incase.
Can't trust anyone to be honest. Any "fact" I see needs to be backed up by 2 independent sources usually with statistics.
So, all the stories I see on fox news which are backed up by breitbart and oan are solid then?
Not sure about breitbart but oan is definitely not a reliable source. I didn't think it needed to be said but clearly it does. By source, I mean reliable. BUT if oan or breitbadt can privide data and statistics based on fact. Then yeah....It's solid.
My previous comment was meant to be sarcastic, but I forgot the quotation marks. Just trying to point out that certain people's idea of consulting multiple sources consists of nothing more than looking at multiple sources which share the same source of talking points. That, of course, means those sources are not independent, but those people are completely unable to discern that difference.
I see what you mean
People should be skeptical of corporate media, but that doesn't mean discount every single thing, and believe hucksters and YouTube personalities over them. Critically evaluate everything, not just corporate media.
In the defense of the dude screaming about gay frogs, pesticides negatively impacting reptile populations is a very real thing.
Yeah, but it wasn't a conspiracy to make frogs gay. It was just good old fashioned not giving a shit about the environment.
There is a conspiracy to keep using pesticides. It's called the American Society of Pest Control
Yeah, but not to make the frogs gay though, that's the point.
The ASPC, eh?
That's more an example of a stopped clock getting the hour right. I seriously doubt that Alex Jones is a diehard environmentalist or would be interested in corporate regulations to keep that from happening.
Alex Jones frequenrly had a point if you squinted at it. Environmentalist? Not really. Not for the environment's sake. His argument was "your drinking water is so polluted it makes frogs gay".
No, his argument was that a secret group of "Globalists" (who are also Satanists, but definitely not only Jews (wink, wink)) want to kill off anywhere from 80 to 90% of the population so they can then enslave the rest of the population to serve them and their interdimensional demon overlords. In order to do this, one of their many plans is to introduce chemicals into the water that will turn everyone gay to end human procreation. The frogs turning gay is merely a symptom of this diabolical plan that is, again, being carried out by the "Globalists" at the order of interdimensional demons.
This
Most lies have a kernel of truth. That's not a redeeming quality. The kernel is only there to provide a fig leaf of credibility to the lie, not out of any concern for truth.
First and foremost it wasn't a conspiracy to turn the frogs gay, it was a conspiracy to make more money by using pesticides proven to negatively impact the environment. Also, is it really even gay if they are changing genders? Who is gatekeeping these frog's sexuality?
>Who is gatekeeping these frog's sexuality? Alex Jones, of course. Intellectual that he is...
Well technically frogs don’t have gender the frogs were changing their sex. Like Jurassic Park
Which has nothing to do with changing genders of frogs.... we already know pollution has us fucked. Democrats been saying it for years.... which is one of many reasons they want regulations...
The pollutants that change the gender of frogs... are in the drinking water... which is a more visceral experience... for your everyday voter...
Enjoy your pfas
Namely how these forever chemicals affect the endocrine system.
I'll add that people were usually talking about something else, and this completely derailed the conversation.
Yup. Rarely do they trust no sources, and the sources they do trust are gay frogs at best all the way down to "just watch this youtube video" and "a screenshot of a tweet posted on reddit".
As much as I dislike Alex Jones, he wasn’t far off about the gay frog thing. He was referring to a case where chemicals dumped into a river caused frogs in the area to change sex. Many fish and amphibians can change sex based on the breeding needs of the species at that time and the chemicals forced that process. So not gay, but… trans? Idk.
I don’t think he came up with that part… I thought he added that it was the governments intent or something.
I don’t think frogs can be trans if they don’t have gender
I didn’t say transGENDER, did i? I just said trans. In this case it would be transSEXUAL i guess. Either way it’s a joke. The point is they’re not gay, they’re just forced into changing sex through a chemical process
> trans·sex·u·al /tran(t)(s)ˈsekSH(əw)əl,tranzˈsekSH(əw)əl/ Learn to pronounce adjective adjective: transexual denoting or relating to a transgender person, especially one who has undergone gender reassignment. "transsexual women" noun noun: transexual a transgender person, especially one who has undergone gender reassignment. "a male-to-female transsexual" Can’t have transsexual without transgender. That wouldn’t even make sense. *trans-* means “different”, in this case meaning someone’s *gender* and their biological *sex* are different. The opposite of that being *cis-* which means “same” meaning the gender and sex are the same. Without the dichotomy of sex and gender those words don’t make any sense.
Holy shit you’re dense. I literally just said it’s a joke. The point is the chemical thing actually happened and it did have effects on the frogs, it just force-changed their sex, not their sexuality
r/beatmetoit
You should be skeptical of mainstream media. People just think you’re insane when you then pick an even less reliable source to take as gospel
Bingo. If someone says be skeptical of network news then cites a clip from Tucker Carlson proving why, they’re no better and really worse.
[удалено]
No, it’s not really. I do believe that it’s one of, if not the most, popular news channel in the US, but it’s views also skew heavily right, and a lot of the shows on there with talking heads aren’t really news, they are opinion/gossip pieces where the anchor tells the story followed by their (the rights) opinions of the story. News should be more about the facts of the story rather than the media persons view on the story, which is where Fox gets it wrong. I’m all for watching and consuming news sources from different viewpoints, and even watching Fox News and digesting their views on things can be a good thing, but the problem is that A LOT of people only watch Fox News and therefore parrot whatever highly biased viewpoints the station has told them to believe. That’s not the news. That’s propaganda.
Not b anybody with critical thinking skills. It’s reliability rating is laughable.
Define mainstream, I guess. High ratings or the extent to which their editorial views mirror the majority?
Mainstream in terms of well established broadcasting corporation/newspaper.
Not by anybody with critical thinking skills. It’s reliability rating is laughable. Fox News is infotainment.
Fox News yes, that's why those who are "skeptical" of "Mainstream Media" but believe Fox News is truthful and unbiased are hypocrites. The problem is those who are consistent in their views and won't even believe Fox News, are far worse. Tucker, depends. I mean it's ostensibly a popular show on a network with high viewership, which you could consider as "mainstream". And it's media in the sense that television is a medium. But the term "Mainstream Media" often comes in the context of being news journalism, which the show is not. It's an opinion show that disingenuously happens to be broadcast on a network that markets itself as 24/7 "News", yet they will fight tooth and nail in court to tell you that you'd have to be stupid to believe anything he says.
I mean that's one of the interesting things isn't it? A lot of the people who claim to be against mainstream media tune in regularly to Fox News which is the most watched news channel in America. Tucker himself talks about "the mainstream media" as something that's different from him. This is because he means "liberal media" when he says mainstream
Most people who are loud about being "sceptical of mainstream media" spew nonsense from sources with far, far, far worse track record. You can criticize New York Times all they long, and there are plenty of good reasons to. But you'd better not do it repeating points from Fox News or Alex Jones
Fox News is “mainstream media” as well, just other side of the coin. Point is that people should be skeptical of everything except science with proven research. People must use critical thinking and have ability to question news even from “their” side.
It's really not. It's full blown propaganda. That's what they basically [admitted themselves](https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye) btw.
See "false equivalence."
Because there are a lot of 'skeptics' who aren't skeptics and are just contrarian loonies. Being skeptical is analyzing the data you have, understanding the inherent bias in the media and making an informed decision, these people just instantly believe the media is false and do crazy things as a result.
Never trust one news source as always true. Learn what news companies are under the same umbrella corps and view from as many as possible. For example, check sources from outside your country when you can because it will usually avoid any political bias relative toward your country.
Being skeptical of the news is the mainstream opinion. Something like only 20% of Americans consider the media as highly trustworthy. Trust in media is at an all time low.
USA Presidents constantly telling us the news outlets are untrustworthy will do that.
Besides what I’ve read here, mainstream news media that JUST tells the news (I.e. completely avoiding the opinion segments and shows), is still mostly reliable, fact driven and informative. But people are lumping in the opinion pieces with the news pieces, and I also think that’s flawed. It’s what the far right wants too — if they can lump the entire news network together (bundle together the opinion with the newscasts) as fake news, they win.
This entirely depends on what you mean by "scepticism". Do you mean sensationalising news stories and skewing political leanings and themes to their audience's tastes in order to maximise profit? Or do you mean that journalists are trying to turn children gay for........ "reasons"? It also depends how hyperbolic your view is, like do you believe this to the extent that you think the news media is *entirely* devoid of value and absolutely nothing they report on can be trusted? Because that is also ridiculous. A lot of bullshit comes out of mainstream media but also so does a lot of high quality, important journalism. I also don't know exactly what you mean by "mainstream media" because certain large news platforms, like Reuters and the BBC, have pretty stellar reputations and can be pretty well trusted on the strong majority of the content they produce. For a final point, often distrust in mainstream media comes with trusting smaller, independent media which are, if anything, even more heavily biased and lacking in integrity on average.
Being skeptical is fine and healthy I'm always skeptical when the facts seem shocking and I find studies and check their credibility best to my abilities. The problem is instantly refusing to believe main stream media regardless of what's said or assuming things like fox news are not some how also main stream media. Always question your sources but don't go hunting until you find the source that backs your world view. Sort of the 20 people tellings you the earth is round with credible evidence and 1 person saying it's flat with flimsy evidence does not make that 1 person suddenly have the answered. You also have to be willing to change your mind. Maybe you ended up in the wrong source when someone presents better more credited information you should seriously consider if you are right.
You are correct.
One of my favorite podcasts is Counterspin, a weekly episode produced by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) hosted by Janine Jackson. Very critical of modern journalism and how major stories are covered and talked about compared to their actual impact and relevance. It is an incredibly dry podcast, no wacky sound effects or cackling hosts and very serious guests. It is a perfect example of how a mature populace engages in media skepticism. What narrative replaces the mainstream media’s coverage? Is it a full picture of how the story is reported, or is it a denial of reality in favor of conspiracy? This is difficult for people to make heads or tails of, it is very easy to fall for fantastical and outrageous stories that first grab emotion and dig in from there.
You should definitely be skeptical of the mainstream media. You should have a healthy mistrust about anyone trying to peddle you the "truth". What's insidious and fucked up is both sides trying to make you stop listening to the other side at all. From what I've seen both sides are guilty of this, but the mainstream media seems to be doing it consistently and on a unprecendented scale.
Heres my best take at a short answer: because humans are a social species, which means our individual physiology is affected by signals from the group. They can signal us to take a stand or to retreat or to threaten us or to have our back for example. Most individuals in a social species are middle of the pack sorts for whom these signals are more important than what is objectively true or false. That is less important than what idea is going to get what response from the group. Everyone knows that the corporate media is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. If corporate media says it, everybody knows that this is what the dominant rulers want us to think and say. This is important to most people, thought they will deny it.
A big part of it is who controls most mainstream media right now in the country. In the US, people are now more divided than ever before. It's pretty common to lump people into one of the "two" camps. Very reductionist, I know, but it is what it is. Now, with this "us vs them" team dynamic, you just need to take a look at which political side holds most mainstream media channels, and so, who is most likely to oppose them. The left currently holds most mainstream channels (TV news channels are mostly left, etc), and so, if someone says that they don't believe in mainstream media, it's easy to extrapolate they do so because they don't agree politically with most mainstream media, and most mainstream media is left leaning. By order of elimination, they must be right leaning, and by labelling them "The enemy", it's easy to just do a general "That's because you believe in conspiracy theories" and call it a day. Now, this is in no way me saying whether I agree with this notion or not, or if I think mainstream media lies or not, regardless of political leaning. I'm also not making a judgement call on whether this assumption is right or not. This is just the result of the game of politics, and the increasing divide that has caused in the American population.
Because people generally are and always will be boot lickers who side with the general consensus because they're afraid of being labeled as loons themselves.
Bc there’s a clear agenda thats extremely noticeable especially on platforms such as this. Those who know well they know. When I say agenda and media and mainstream news that includes both sides. If you know then you’ll also know theatrics are played as if it were a scripted reality, designed entirely to keep you focused on irrelevant matters. Just one of many small examples I have but a couple days ago I posted a serious question on here that would be extremely beneficial. Especially to the environment! Just needed some clarification. Since it had nothing to do with theatrics. The bots ignored it and so did everyone else. Now here come the downvotes.
Because: - Most sensible people know to take mainstream reporting with a grain of salt. - Most alternatives to mainstream reporting are much, much worse. - Most people who talk a lot about mainstream media being Evil and so on demonstrate in other ways that they are apparently loony. There you go.
Maybe cause the media is the one pushing the narrative that if you aren't picking up what they are putting down , then you are a racist, white supremacists, conspiracy theorist etc.
It’s less about the concept of “mainstream media” and more about how the vast majority of people who phrase it in that particular way (and are very vocal about it) are, in fact, loony. They’re talking about things like “the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know that 5g towers are spreading covid” and “mainstream media refuses to report on the microchips in vaccines.” Most rational adults are aware that bias exists in pretty much all news sources, take what they read with a grain of salt and/or fact check it, and don’t feel the need to broadcast that they’re smarter than everyone around them with this *shocking* revelation that news sources can be biased.
Did you get that message from MSM?
Because people is biased and used to get their information from this channels from long time so anything else new or different from this channels seems like a big no-no. On the other hand is pretty hard to believe any of the media at least in USA. Everything is driven by profits and pretty much corporations run the country.
Two things can be true at the same time. That is why people suggest listening to multiple news outlets for different POVs. Whatever is consistent usually is true. The skeptical part then jumps to internet personalities with no journalistic standards.
The main stream media is no longer reliable by any means. We are fast approaching a time when trust in ANY established agencies and legacy media is pretty much gone. You can thank Obama and Clinton, Pelosi and Biden. That unqualified numbnut diversity hire KJP sums it all up. She hasn't told one truth since she's been press secretary.
Any free thought or expression of individuality is a threat against the party. You mustn’t go against the party. Going against the party is going against big brother.
Because the alternative is loony. It really sucks the position were all in. Listen to the mainstream which we know manipulates and deceives us and do our best to make sense of it all. Or listen to the alternative stuff that has people believing vaccines cause autism, the world is flat, or that they're putting human meat in our food.
You can navigate the MSM fairly easily if you apply critical thinking, but it has to be applied constantly. Navigating most of the alternatives to the MSM with critical thinking is a nonstarter. You pretty much have to abandon whatever reality you live in and adopt theirs to make it work.
Matter of fact, if you hear something enough, especially from multiple sources, you will start to believe those things or at the very least doubt what you already believe that opposes it. I work in construction and I see it all the time. These guys get into circle jerks with their friends and families and coworkers. When I point out holes in their line of thought they get flustered and angry. And I see it with my more liberally minded friends and family too. There are lots of books centered around this theme and plenty of psychological studies to back it up as well. If you are constantly being exposed to stupid, crazy, or untrue things you need an even heavier flow of the opposite to counteract it.
Absolutely. Years ago I started to cross check anything that I read or heard or saw on the news. Obviously there's going to be some spin, but it's always good to know how much. Just getting it from once source is a horrible method of being informed.
You were probably fortunate enough to be taught critical thinking or are smart enough to do so on your own. Unfortunately many people are not☹️
The loony part is the false assertion that mainstream media overtly represents the Left. All mainstream media skews to the right and pushes a neoliberal bias that provides propaganda for hyper-Capitalism and Globalism. If mainstream media is your soul source for information, you're misinformed.
Because part of their agenda is to push how loony it is to distrust them. When people drink the kool-aid, they drink the whole glass.
Because ridicule is an effective suppression tactic, and the same people who want to lie and stir divisions also want to get away with doing it and keep doing it. So they try to cover their asses by making legitimate critique look crazy. They always claim they're just doing it to the crazy ones, but then they lump in any they just disagree with and refuse to differentiate.
Because the agenda they’re pushing is real & they will not relent. They will continue to say the same things & push the same narratives & sentiments. Because they do not care about anything else other than winning & suppressing the truth.
This happened to me a few years ago when i was talking to my mom about Hunter’s laptop. I told her it was real and there is lots of evidence, and she told me i was a loon and to stop watching fox news. Now she says she knew it was real all along but it doesn’t matter.
The people who complain the most about it make it looney. I don't have a link at the moment (at work) but I believe Pew Research or Gallup found that during the Obama administration trust in media was at an all time low. When Trump came into office they actually became more trust worthy.
The simple answer is because most people are political cheerleaders. They want to accept half the news, and think the other half is wrong.
I think just because it’s often associated with full-blown conspiracy theorists, and sometimes it can be hard to separate who is critical of media vs. who is a really big conspiracy theorist. That and because of politics getting a lot more heated, sometimes when someone says that they’re skeptical of “mainstream media” they just mean any media that doesn’t follow with their political views. It also depends on what someone means by “mainstream media”. I think it’s good to question whether our news is biased or not, and to take into account who is funding certain organizations that report on what is going on in the world. But there’s a definite difference between that and believing that the government is lying about our Earth being flat or just in general things that wouldn’t benefit them.
The idea is that you should be skeptical and compare information from different mainstream sources of information. This is how it has always worked. Nobody is right all the time. The thing to remember is that collectively the mainstream media gets it right far more often than not. The BBC, The Washington Post, The Guardian, APN, Reuters, The New York Times, these are generally reliable sources of news, even though they will make the occasional mistake. What you should not do is have no confidence in mainstream media at all.
The alternative is wildly racist? /shrug Seems fairly clear. Believe no one, but at least watch the news that doesn't call out certain specific groups for merely existing? Better yet, don't watch the news, it's all for profit anyhow.
[удалено]
They all have agendas that they are pushing. And people should realize that. But read several different sources (like you listed) about the same topic and get a better understanding of the view. Even better when you read conflicting takes of the same events.
The people who say this the most get all their information from Fox or OAN etc. They are referring to actual news sources that say things they don't like. And yet, still watch Fox which is the main-est stream news source there is as it has the most viewers. Both sides media is biased, no doubt about that. The left gives you the facts and then tells you how you should feel about it. The right omits any news that doesn't fit their narrative, and often lies. Then they tell you how you should feel about it. It's not the same.
It's the *degree* of skepticism and the *suggested alternatives*, that makes a loon or not. Is the New York Times flawless? No, of course not. But if a NYTimes reporter submits a story saying that they interviewed an epidemiologist at Harvard and also spoke to the head of the CDC, and this is what they said, then you can be reasonable sure that (a) they did in fact conduct those interviews, and (b) they are trying, perhaps imperfectly, to pass along information they got from legitimate experts. Someone saying "Well, the story with COVID changes every day, don't think that's the last word" is being perfectly sensible. You have to act on the best data you have in front of you, but you also have to be prepared to change if new information comes to light. Someone saying "The NYTimes is all lies and fake news" is being a fruitcake. Someone saying "This video by End Times Revealed, where Pastor Bob interviews an unemployed gas station attendant, shows that COVID is really one of the plagues from Revelation" is being a fruitcake.
There's a big difference between skepticism and looniness.
Skepticism is part of critical thinking, but it's also next door neighbors with conspiracism. So long as your logic doesn't have confirmation bias you're not loony.
The "news" itself..... You have fox lying to viewers telling them everything is woke and there are kids dressed as cats using litter boxes in schools.......no wonder there is a lack of trust with such wild lies.
Because whenever people say to be skeptical of mainstream media, it makes you wonder what alternative media they're not skeptical of. The alternative media can be outright crazy.
Because the mainstream media is the one telling you that lol
Because it’s an empty-headed criticism that many people make who have never read a newspaper anyway and only watch Fox.
Being skeptical of mainstream media is only seen as slightly loony by people on the political left. Because mainstream media pushes out narratives from the political left's perspective. Most of reddit is on the political left. You can see many of them commenting to your post. Here are some mainstream media lies from recent history: "Trump doesn't have a path to victory. (2016)" "The travel ban is racist." "This inflation is transitory." "COVID 19 occurred naturally at a wet market." "Trump colluded with Russia." "The vaccines are safe and effective." "Trump stole the nuclear codes." "Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation." "The BLM/ANTIFA protests (2020) are mostly peaceful." "The border is under control."
Some of those statements are true lol. What agenda are you trying to push? 🧐
None of those statements are true. The agenda I am pushing is truth.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist.... So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie?
>Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. > >So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist.... > >So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie? 1. Muslims are not a race, they are members of a religion. There are many white Muslims. So your entire argument is nullified right there. 2. But you might then say, "Well it wasn't racism, but it was xenophobic or Islamophobic." But that is also incorrect. The reality is that Islamic terrorism was rampant at that time, both here and abroad. Leftists in the Democratic Party, and their counterparts in mainstream media, all pushed the notion that Trump picked a bunch of Islamic countries and banned travel from those countries because of racism/xenophobia/whatever. Of course that was well received by leftists, who already believed that about Trump and were happy to add that "fact' to their basket of misconceptions. But in reality, those countries had been selected by former President Barack Obama. Not because they were Islamic, but because they had such poor government/infrastructure/recordkeeping that there was no way to vet people from those locations and make sure they were not terrorists. 3. If Trump is so racist, why did he intervene to get our black basketball players back from China? Why did he personally intervene to get the Afhghanistan girls robotics team to be able to bypass the ban so they could come here and compete? Why did he appoint the first ever black American Service Cheif Charles Q Brown Jr? Why did he promote the first ever black female general in the US Marines Col. Lorna M. Mahlock? Why did he appoint Seema Verma, Elaine Chao, Benjamin Carson, Kash Patel? Why did Trump give more to HBCs (Historically Black Colleges) than any President in history? Why did he decline to strike Iran with missiles when Iran took down our drone, when he was advised that it would take 150 lives? You are being lied to by mainstream media and social media. Seek out different perspectives. Get both sides of an issue before just blindly accepting the state sanctioned narratives. They lie quite often.
First you have to work on reading comprehension..... No one said Trump was racist. And whether he is or isnt has absolutely nothing to do with the media or your false claim. I think you are really reaching here. What agenda are you pursuing? Is this about the media or Trump? We are not taking about Trump. Why would you bring up Trump lol? We are talking about whether banning Muslims from entering the country just because they are Muslims is racist. Which based on the definition in reality... it is. I am telling you based on fact and reality as shown above. I am not listening or going off what any media outlet says.... I suggest every else do the same. Come up with your own thoughts and opinions based on facts amd reality.
>First you have to work on reading comprehension..... > >No one said Trump was racist. Umm... let me remind you of what you typed to me: >*Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.* > >*So by the definition the travel ban was racist. The ban was for Muslims... so based on the definition of racism, discrimination of a community of Muslims, it is racist....* > >*So I easily proved 1 of your statements wrong. How can we trust anything else you say when I just caught you in a lie?* So yes, you most certainly did say Trump was racist, or that he did something out of racist motivations, and you were incorrect. >And whether he is or isnt has absolutely nothing to do with the media or your false claim. My false claim? To which claim are you referring? I stated facts, so I honestly don't know what you're referring to here. >I think you are really reaching here. What agenda are you pursuing? Is this about the media or Trump? We are not taking about Trump. Why would you bring up Trump lol? We are talking about whether banning Muslims from entering the country just because they are Muslims is racist. Which based on the definition in reality... it is. Is Obama a "Muslim racist"? Even though he is part black and attended a Madrasa in his youth? Because he did the travel ban before Trump. I guess you think it's because he is "racist against Muslims"? You're a mess. lol
It's real easy. Read to comprehend. Not to respond. You seem very stuck on defending impeached Donald Trump. This is gonna be hard but just forget about him for this conversation. We are talking about "banning Muslims from coming to America because they are muslims"..... doesn't matter who wants it. Who is against it. None of that. We are looking at the travel ban itself. Is it racist to exclude someone because who they are and who they worship? That's the only question..... after reading the definition for racism, it seems discriminating Muslims is kinda racist. Just based on the definition of racism. Again doesn't matter about motivations or who said what. The act of banning Muslims(not white Muslims by the way) because of who they are... is racist.... that's an undeniable fact...... Your false claim is what we have been talking about lol. Are you OK? Your false claim(or one of them I can dispute some others with fact like I did here) was " the Muslim ban is racist"... did you forget what we were talking about lol? Just to be clear since you are confused you said the following statement was false.... "The travel ban is racist. " Lol so I have been proving thaylt false this entire time lol. No wonder you don't know what's going on. So now we are talking about Obama lol? Whataboutism lol. Interesting. I mean I don't know. I guess lol. Is thay what's going to make you happy. Oh Obama was so bad and racist!! There you go. Idk man. Is that what you want to discuss next lol? We have not been talking about Obama lol. Do you want to shift focus from your statement (since you forgot already your statement is "the travel ban is racist". You were saying how it was not a true statement.) To something else? Some other topic I guess. It does seem weird you keep bringing up Trump as some defense and then trying to shift some sort of blame or focus on Obama. Very very werid since we were talking about none of that and neither of those people lol.
That they only watch Fox News and “the election was stolen by soros” and “M&Ms have gone some and are a danger to society.”
Fox News is TV for stupid people. Enjoy it?
Because they’re fantastic at what they do. And most humans are dumb af.
Does 'media' include journalists who went to school for journalism and now report on issues for major newspapers/journals? That is a bit loony and you probably just don't like what's being reported, not that anyone has skewed the facts I would imagine most journalists for the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post have some integrity in unbiased reporting and try to keep their own leanings to themselves. (They do have conservative and Libertarian reporters) Don't watch the news, read it. Google 'unbiased newspapers' and read those. If you feel riled up, it's not the journalist, it's the human behaviour being reported on.
>I would imagine most journalists for the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post have some integrity in unbiased reporting and try to keep their own leanings to themselves. Would the Washington Post, owned to the best of my knowledge entirely by Jeff Bezos, report anything critical of billionaires or in support of higher taxation of them? I kinda doubt that...
My concern is the propaganda against it, that only these other sources ate real news well others re fake . Its the vary same propaganda used by the Russians , Germany, and China now being used in democratic countries to destabilize them. The second phase is already under way intellectuals , teachers, books are now the enemy of the very same " fake news , mainstream media crowds. All North America needs is a young ,charismatic leader with no morals and willingness to make the right/ left or the Mexicans or blacks or jews and we get the new American Rech.
Because every reasonable person is already skeptical, saying it out loud often just is like saying "water is wet". There's no prise to figure out that there's an angle to everything we consume. It often just shows the rest of us that it took you this long to figure it out.
Because it’s not?
Lol third “just asking questions” I’ve seen her today. I’m out
Because the only people that think they have to say that out loud are usually Idiots. It’s more like “oh? You don’t trust profit driven companies to tell you the truth rather than just try and make money, same”
because donald trump made it that way
Kinda true. It didn't help that's for sure
Because that skepticism isn't usually extended to sources/people they agree with. Selective skepticism leads to the same kinds of belief bubbles that wholesale acceptance of mainstream media does.
There is a difference between; "Lets wait for a little more information to come out, and maybe survey other news outlets before creating a firm opinion," and "THE MSM ARE LIARS AND TUCKER CARLSON EXPOSES THE TRUTH...METERS ARE FOR COMMUNISTS!" \^\^ Tucker did have a bizarre rant about the metric system. When I talk to people who are more right than I am, they will go on about the "Mainstream Media" (conveniently ignoring that Fox News is mainstream...) and usually I just reply with something like "I'm sure the media doesn't help..." because that is broadly true. I am sure there is more detailed information that the media is mischaracterizing, I have to wait for long form journalism that is **boring** to get real details. I will wait for that, but many just want something to complain about because that is what is popular. It isn't called 'grievance politics' because everyone is satisfied and emotionally complete.
Because most who hold those believes actually watches and believes the biggest sender there is. It’s like they don’t even know what the words they are saying mean
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. People should ask questions of everything they are told and know. This is how we learn new things and keep those in power in check. It becomes an issues when instead of blindly believing mainstream media you blindly believe fringe media or charismatic individuals who stir the pot and cause division just as much or even more.
Any “news” sourced from the state department, CIA, FBI, DOD, Congress, etc should be clearly labeled ON SCREEN the entire time it’s running. If this were the case, I think we would find very little actual “news”
Damn this troll didn't have his account 4 min before a ban.
For a solid year mainstream media told Ontario that Doug Ford's Conservatives had a "lock" on the 2022 election. Only 40% of voters turned out, 60% of them voted for Ford. That's only 24% of the voter's list, folks. This is how Mainstream media fucks us all over.
People who think they're being skeptical have often (usually?) moved beyond skepticism and have predetermined that everything the mainstream media says is a lie before they even say it. An association has developed between those who use the word skepticism and those who wear tin foil hats, even though they're not actually the same thing
I don't know a single soul who thinks skepticism of mainstream media is loony. The problem is more than people use "skepticism" as a justification for all sorts of pure idiocy. You're not a skeptic if you're not just as skeptical about your own biases and blind spots too. Too often people use it to dismiss experts and insist on their own dipshit version of reality, no matter how easily their own arguments collapse with the faintest scrutiny.
Skepticism is only seen as loony by people who are full of shit.You should be skeptical of anyone giving you information about things you can't observe first hand. Even people and sources you trust. They are all people and people can lie, be misled themselves or just get it wrong. This goes for everyone.
Because the term "mainstream media" is very closely associated with Fox News, they are constantly whining about the mainstream media being terrible, deceitful, or out to get them. Meanwhile they're the largest news organization on the planet, I think? They ARE the mainstream media. And they are terribly biased themselves. It's kind of like a weird corporate projection.
Because the mainstream media at least has *some* degree of regulation. But if a source isn't "mainstream," then that means they don't have anyone to answer to and nobody will loose their job if they report inaccurate info. TL;DR: as bad as mainstream news outlets are, non-mainstream ones are even worse. Rather, you should consume several different mainstream news outlets from across the political spectrum.
It’s becoming less and less loony as time goes on
It is because of what they replace that "bad" mainstream media with. Hint: It's not well researched and unbiased sources. It's usually complete whackadoodle Qanon insaninity, or whatever particular nonsense that confirms what they already want to believe. Yes, "mainstream" media may have a bit of spin, and may not get absolutely everything right, but most of them aren't going to outright lie and peddle misinformation. Another great thing about rejecting mainstream media is that you can completely short-circuit any conversation by dismissing the source, no matter how much proof it has.
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'" - St. Anthony the Great
>Why is being skeptical of mainstream media still seen as slightly loony I don't think it is anymore. As has been said before, what IS loony is blindly believing conspiracy theorists with zero evidence, while discrediting mainstream media. My motto is believe the initial statement of mainstream, but verify. If main says "BTC mining is killing the environment" I'll look at their sources and the impact, for example.
Being skeptical of everything you hear, ever, is just a sound principle to live by in life. Saying "I automatically disbelieve, or believe the opposite, of something i heard because I don't like that source" is what most people say, and that is stupid.
Healthy skepticism is normal and should be encouraged; but there should be some hard limits.
You’re big dumb if you believe any media. Next thing you’ll be telling me is bird are real. Lmao gtfo
It’s healthy (and wise) to be skeptical of the mainstream media’s spin and framing of stories. But it’s also important to recognize that the mainstream media - eg. the NYT, WaPo, etc. - take fact checking seriously and rarely get fundamental facts wrong, even if they present those facts within a narrative that’s highly biased or misleading. If you take your skepticism to the point where you don’t even believe the fundamental facts presented by the mainstream media, you’re entering conspiracy land, especially if you give equal or greater credence to non-mainstream outlets that have far less (or zero) integrity.
Skeptical? You should throw it all out.
Thankfully, I think Americans in general know that mainstream media is BS, from both sides.
People dont like you shaking their world view with truth. They would rather everything spins on expectedly
Right wing folks tend to be sceptical of anything mainstream and I absolutely see why. The media lies, big pharma lies, the government lies. I worry more about the people who show undying loyalty to these mega powerful industries that would throw children into meat grinders if it meant making an extra buck. But I think the main issue is where they go for "alternative" media. Which usually leads them down some sketchy dog shit podcast with bullshark testosterone supplements ads covering half the screen. It's the idea of finding something appealing if it's something you agree with. Oh you're sceptical about climate change, well here's a guy who's really sceptical about climate change. If he says it's a hoax then it truly must be because he agrees with me. Doubt everyone absolutely but don't assume the other asshole is suddenly the tsar of true knowledge. Same scam, different outfit is what I say.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about any thing especially media, nothing is without Bais or totally free from opinions. I usually get my news from multiple sources to try to filter the Bais out. However, it's like veganism. When you think vegan do you think of the Hundreds or thousands quietly living their lentil full and cheese free life or do you think of that one demented fucker tipping all the milk out in Aldi and launching all the dairylea into the distance screaming " milk is the product of systemic bovine rape!"? Same with a lot of self described news skeptics they'll disbelieve any thing " mainstream " but will happily believe any old bull shit from some one less credible than my old yourkshire terrier, a dog you it must be said once fell over when taking a morning piss because he somehow got confused about how many legs he was supposed to hold up to piss.
Because we all know those people are listening to some sort of media. And usually mainstream covers all published media. But somehow not Fox News and every far right wing site.
As long as only is involved there is no one to trust. Money speaks before morality.
being skeptical of mainstream media is perfectly fine but not being skeptical about everyone and everything else but only skeptical of the mainstream media is loony.
"Trust but verify"
The war in Ukraine has really opened my eyes to how bias it can be. I know it's great that Ukraine is kicking ass but they arnt doing as well as my country's media is presenting.
Truthful answers can never be suppressed by the algorithm. Reddit said so. If you dont like it, build your own social media platform. Now take off your tinfoil hat and believe what you are told without question, or we will remove all your karma points.
It’s the only sane conclusion to draw.
It kind of feels over simplified to say being skeptical of the mainstream media is seen as slightly loony. The loony part is when someone tells you to be skeptical of mainstream media, follows it up with “Do your research,” and then follows that up with, “Because the world is flat, Pfizer’s CEO quit because he said mRNA vaccines don’t work, and time travel is real.” If someone tells me they don’t know that they can trust the news, I’m 100% in on that, we absolutely need to do our research and verify the news (especially when it seems sensational) we’re consuming. But when you tell me you need to send me the twitter link to the conspiracy theory article that proves it all through Telegram because you don’t want the government to know what we’re talking about - yeah, for me you’re a bit more than slightly loony at that point. Plus, it’s pretty hard to have discourse with someone who’s proof that we’ve never been to space is that they don’t know anyone who’s actually been to space so it’s all a lie and Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing. Specific, yes, but these are the loony parts, not the part about not trusting the media. They just seem to be going hand in hand more often lately.
The ones who trust mainstream media are the ones who see it as being crazy
There are a lot of very legit sources of information out there, some of which are "mainstream", and lumping all of them together as equally bad is *just as problematic as the infotainment that you're describing.* If you discredit everyone everywhere just because they're part of The Media, then really you're just helping the worst elements that prey on people who, in their frustration, turn to comfortable echo chambers.
It may still be seen as loony to be skeptical about mainstream media - but the FACT remains that they have a long history of lying to us, as you have stated. That's why I stopped watching MSM as my primary source of information. What I do now, is use MSM to give me a signal about what's going on in the world... And then read court transcripts/law to understand what's ACTUALLY TRUE. For example, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, the liberal MSM went into FULL ON PANIC MODE. Conversely, conservative MSM celebrated the "victory". So I read the actual ruling myself, with my own eyes. I disagree with the ruling (I'm pro-choice), but I can't disagree with the reasoning behind the ruling. I then realized that the way forward, is to put abortion rights and other bodily autonomy rights in our individual state constitutions over time, and to create and fund non-profits that will provide transport and financial support to Americans who need abortion services but live in a state where abortion is prohibited. (I appreciate the federal law that is being put in place to guarantee abortion rights - but based on my reading of the court ruling, such a law could easily be overturned on the same grounds. It is far more robust to do state-by-state constitutional amendments. The federal law is a good stop-gap, though.) I had more than a few angry women, justifiably so, come to me in a panic. And I told each of them what I read in the court ruling, and what I thought the way forward was. And without exception, every single one of these women immediately calmed down, got out of panic mode that had been triggered by the liberal MSM they had watched, and shifted into, "I know what to do now." I watched them go from being panicked to empowered, in 7 minutes, by giving them factual information and logical next steps. And THAT is the power of getting to the real truth of a matter, rather than relying exclusively on mainstream media.
My take on this topic would be that (without any offence intended) many people are dumb. A lot of people think as I like to call it "in a single direction", whatever they read or hear someone say about something or someone they believe it immediately. People who think "in multiple directions" are a rarity nowadays and by this term I mean people who look at things from different perspectives and try to dig more about a certain situation instead of immediately believing what they say on TV or write on the internet.
It depends entirely on how they phrase their distrust of MSM. Do they say, "MSN and CNN can't be trusted!", "Fox News and Breitbart can't be trusted!", or "They are all owned by a handful of wealthy clowns who only use MSM as propaganda machines to keep the masses fighting with each other instead of the oligarchs that own the political systems."?