4 ms·

I believe that discrediting all serious news media is part of the same general disinformation campaign as the 'fake news'. For one, it's a very standard, expec

I believe that discrediting all serious news media is part of the same general disinformation campaign as the 'fake news'. For one, it's a very standard, expected strategy for such campaigns: The only solution to masses fake information is the credibility of some sources; we trust them to sort through the mess and find the truth. If you want to sow confusion, an obvious tactic is to attack the credibility of the trusted sources. In the U.S., the right-wing bloggers, Fox, etc. have openly done this for many years. For another, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This "MSM" is not a monolithic group, but very many competing organizations. Any criticism that seems, on its face, poorly thought through.

xnull2guest 10y ago
This comment is so confusing. It points out that the media industry isn't a monolithic group that is composed of competing organizations, and therefore not subject to scrutiny. Then it argues that "fake news", which isn't a monolithic group and is composed of competing organizations, is collaborating and subjects it to scrutiny. I think you're right about the second part. Alternative narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives for the current media market. That's the strategic thing to do. But I think you're wrong about the first part for the same reason you are right about the second. Establishment narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives of the alternative media market. That's the strategic thing to do. It's important to mention that while modern media companies compete, they compete on a very particular basis: to tell the better publicly endorsed narrative. Deviating from that endorsed narrative gets the organization in trouble (AP during the Obama Administration), loses them access, and loses them incredibly important government contracts. It's also important to not take sides and then try to work backwards to determine who you believe (you'll end up in a circle of cognitive bias, I think well illustrated by what you've posted so far). Looking at the arguments of both the mainstream media and alternative outlets on their own merits is important. What I suspect you'll find is that both are right. Alternative outlets have their own biases, and ones you might not agree with! But you'll also find that establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised in terms of credibility, everything from whitewashing war crimes, excusing government torture and covering Snowden documents as "bulk collection" rather than "mass surveillance". That is, if you're apt to make intellectual mistakes like thinking in black and white and ideological totality - you're bound to not only discredit the side that you want to "lose" but credit the other side with more than they are worth! In this case the mistake would be coming away thinking that the media and advertising market is unbiased and impartial, unpolitical, complete and that it's coverage - especially on topics of national security concern - is credible. Walking away with that mistake I think would be the most illustrative of how easy it is for people to be swallowed by fallacious reasoning.
- hackuser 10y ago
  No, it's not all relative, all the same, subject to interpretation, or just a matter of political preference. There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer. As I said, all these theories, claiming it's all relative, are part of the disinformation campaign, wittingly or not. > establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised You can make that claim, but it's not true. Everything you listed were uncovered and reported by leading journalism organizations. Finally, please don't remark on anything but my comment. You have no idea who I am or how I think, and I'm not interested in your ignorant, amateur, cliched, personal advice.
  - xnull2guest 10y ago
    > There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer. This is precisely my point with US propaganda and "the mainstream media". How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of that mass manipulation? Hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS, with a region of the world thrown into chaos. Somehow, you're trying to argue that Facebook rumors are on par with invasion, torture programs, global surveillance and assassinations. The difference is palpable and it's a disgrace arguments like the one above are trying to confuse the consequences, the credibility, and the stakes.

xnull2guest 10y ago

This comment is so confusing. It points out that the media industry isn't a monolithic group that is composed of competing organizations, and therefore not subject to scrutiny. Then it argues that "fake news", which isn't a monolithic group and is composed of competing organizations, is collaborating and subjects it to scrutiny. I think you're right about the second part. Alternative narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives for the current media market. That's the strategic thing to do. But I think you're wrong about the first part for the same reason you are right about the second. Establishment narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives of the alternative media market. That's the strategic thing to do. It's important to mention that while modern media companies compete, they compete on a very particular basis: to tell the better publicly endorsed narrative. Deviating from that endorsed narrative gets the organization in trouble (AP during the Obama Administration), loses them access, and loses them incredibly important government contracts. It's also important to not take sides and then try to work backwards to determine who you believe (you'll end up in a circle of cognitive bias, I think well illustrated by what you've posted so far). Looking at the arguments of both the mainstream media and alternative outlets on their own merits is important. What I suspect you'll find is that both are right. Alternative outlets have their own biases, and ones you might not agree with! But you'll also find that establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised in terms of credibility, everything from whitewashing war crimes, excusing government torture and covering Snowden documents as "bulk collection" rather than "mass surveillance". That is, if you're apt to make intellectual mistakes like thinking in black and white and ideological totality - you're bound to not only discredit the side that you want to "lose" but credit the other side with more than they are worth! In this case the mistake would be coming away thinking that the media and advertising market is unbiased and impartial, unpolitical, complete and that it's coverage - especially on topics of national security concern - is credible. Walking away with that mistake I think would be the most illustrative of how easy it is for people to be swallowed by fallacious reasoning.

hackuser 10y ago
No, it's not all relative, all the same, subject to interpretation, or just a matter of political preference. There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer. As I said, all these theories, claiming it's all relative, are part of the disinformation campaign, wittingly or not. > establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised You can make that claim, but it's not true. Everything you listed were uncovered and reported by leading journalism organizations. Finally, please don't remark on anything but my comment. You have no idea who I am or how I think, and I'm not interested in your ignorant, amateur, cliched, personal advice.
- xnull2guest 10y ago
  > There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer. This is precisely my point with US propaganda and "the mainstream media". How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of that mass manipulation? Hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS, with a region of the world thrown into chaos. Somehow, you're trying to argue that Facebook rumors are on par with invasion, torture programs, global surveillance and assassinations. The difference is palpable and it's a disgrace arguments like the one above are trying to confuse the consequences, the credibility, and the stakes.