8 ms·

Alex Jones is often the person to trot out when you want to discredit the alternative news media. What you then get is exactly the reaction you just got, which

Alex Jones is often the person to trot out when you want to discredit the alternative news media. What you then get is exactly the reaction you just got, which is aggressive push-back and a desire to never research the topic yourself. Because what just happened in your head? You generalized and lumped all alternative news media into a group that is exactly like Alex Jones; far out and kooky. This is the desired effect. The fact is there are many good alternative news sources, that go out of their way to try and find out the truth behind the corporate bought out main stream media. Just because there is one bad apple, does not mean all other news sources are exactly the same.

greenhatman 10y ago
Which news sources do you think are good?
- adsfqwop 10y ago
  You could start with something like Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, Carl Denninger, Bill Still, ZeroHedge, The Corbett Report, Rice Farmer. I use many other ones, but those should be decent entry points to find your own preferred sources.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    Zero Hedge is garbage. The one use we found for it on the trading floor was as a contrarian signal for predicting stupid retail flows. Bloomberg dove into some of their shenanigans last year [1]. More specifically, their content tends to be (a) reprints of Stratfor, Bloomberg or Reuters articles (just read the original), (b) bad financial market predictions and (c) unsourced, unambiguous and untrue rubbish. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Pamar 10y ago
      I tend to agree with the Zerohedge assessment: the rare times they discuss something I have any first-hand professional experience with (e.g. Automotive industry) they spin outrageous tales based on flimsy "proofs".
      - seppin 10y ago
        As is Global Research
  - bigtimeidiot 10y ago
    >Paul Craig Roberts...ZeroHedge PCR thinks Charlie Hebdo was an American initiated false flag. Zero Hedge are okay when they're talking some financial subjects, but go off the rails in anything political related. That comment section is a cesspool.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    >...the corporate bought out main stream media Why is that you think a huge organization of professional journalists (a profession with an independent ethics code and enforcing body) is easier to "buy out" than a handful of white dudes blogging on the internet?
    - Kroniker 10y ago
      Your injection of race in to this topic does nothing but belittle your criticism.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. Now it's a string of 'anonymous official' and the new form that tries harder to be legit 'anonymous official heard X person say', with X a famous and readily recognizable character out of government. At that point is hearsay vs hearsay. Reputable outlets are trashing their reputation and dragging it in the ground in the name of 'faster news' - but then it's even harder to normal people to tell what's grounded, what's likely, what's a half truth and what's propaganda. It's far to easy to get position from a crackpot conspiracy theorist and wash them up into a better thought post on a unbranded website, so google searches now dig up as much trash as good posts for many important topics, and because the writing style and source weight is the same (hearsay) it'll be increasingly difficult for people to process. This is especially true for controversial topics that sit at the edge of personal knowledge. I.e. some day ago I was curios about methane plant total lifecycle impact compared to solar panel disposal or solar concentrator plants, and happened across this article that brings up some interesting points, backs them up with some easily verifiable math and shows a greater complexity to a topic I thought was more straightforward: http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltdown-porter-ranch-means-energy-transition/ http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltd... and the problem is... I have no idea if anything written in there is actually true. it looks true, it sounds a reasonable and balanced analysis, but for that article there are three stating the contrary, and I have not the instruments for differentiating which is good and which is pushing an agenda, since it's not a clear case of partisanship (like you'd expect from articles pushed from 'the union of conservative scientists')
- pavlov 10y ago
  The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. That's not really the case. The Washington Post didn't have any of that when they published their original Watergate scoop. The story came from an anonymous source (the famous "Deep Throat"). The difference is that traditional investigative journalism has a process for establishing the likely credibility of anonymous sources. For a controversial piece, it ultimately comes down to the author's reputation and the editor-in-chief's judgment: will we bet the credibility of our paper on this story? So-called alternative media generally don't seem to care. Their writers will absorb from anonymous and second-hand sources without much editorial oversight. If a story is revealed false, they can just ignore or delete it. The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. Superficially they're both news websites with a miserable comment section, so the confusion is understandable in a way...
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
This is an age old counter intelligence tactic. Plant a loud, incoherent, emotionally charged agent posing as a supporter for something you don't like in order to discredit their unwitting supporters. Not asserting Alex Jones is doing this, rather that this type of tactic is not uncommonly used.
- splawn 10y ago
  "Alex Jones is an inside job!" Hehe, As much as that cracks me up and I would actually love for it to be true... I would need solid lines of evidence and multiple sources backing it up to accept that as true. (Which is exactly why infowars has always fell flat with me)
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    The first time I heard the word 'globalist' was on Alex Jones' radio in ~2000. He was just as nutty then, so this sure would be a long con.
  - Kroniker 10y ago
    There is a pretty good conspiracy that Alex Jones is actually Bill Hicks after the CIA gave him a make-over and use him as a controlled opposition source.
    - splawn 10y ago
      Has he ever addressed that publicly? It would be soooo delicious seeing him debunk a conspiracy using simple logic the same way others do to him. I wonder if his followers would be too far "gone" to be able to feel the cognitive dissonance that should invoke. I will have to look into this more tonight for a laugh.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    On Joe Rogan's podcast, he claimed to have a lot of connections in the military and intelligence community. Not saying it's proof of anything, but it does make one think...
hutzlibu 10y ago
Just one bad apple? Seriously? I think is very hard to not find anything deeply rooten in the alternative media/conspiracy/whatever...

greenhatman 10y ago

Which news sources do you think are good?

adsfqwop 10y ago
You could start with something like Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, Carl Denninger, Bill Still, ZeroHedge, The Corbett Report, Rice Farmer. I use many other ones, but those should be decent entry points to find your own preferred sources.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Zero Hedge is garbage. The one use we found for it on the trading floor was as a contrarian signal for predicting stupid retail flows. Bloomberg dove into some of their shenanigans last year [1]. More specifically, their content tends to be (a) reprints of Stratfor, Bloomberg or Reuters articles (just read the original), (b) bad financial market predictions and (c) unsourced, unambiguous and untrue rubbish. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Pamar 10y ago
    I tend to agree with the Zerohedge assessment: the rare times they discuss something I have any first-hand professional experience with (e.g. Automotive industry) they spin outrageous tales based on flimsy "proofs".
    - seppin 10y ago
      As is Global Research
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >Paul Craig Roberts...ZeroHedge PCR thinks Charlie Hebdo was an American initiated false flag. Zero Hedge are okay when they're talking some financial subjects, but go off the rails in anything political related. That comment section is a cesspool.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  >...the corporate bought out main stream media Why is that you think a huge organization of professional journalists (a profession with an independent ethics code and enforcing body) is easier to "buy out" than a handful of white dudes blogging on the internet?
  - Kroniker 10y ago
    Your injection of race in to this topic does nothing but belittle your criticism.

LoSboccacc 10y ago

The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. Now it's a string of 'anonymous official' and the new form that tries harder to be legit 'anonymous official heard X person say', with X a famous and readily recognizable character out of government. At that point is hearsay vs hearsay. Reputable outlets are trashing their reputation and dragging it in the ground in the name of 'faster news' - but then it's even harder to normal people to tell what's grounded, what's likely, what's a half truth and what's propaganda. It's far to easy to get position from a crackpot conspiracy theorist and wash them up into a better thought post on a unbranded website, so google searches now dig up as much trash as good posts for many important topics, and because the writing style and source weight is the same (hearsay) it'll be increasingly difficult for people to process. This is especially true for controversial topics that sit at the edge of personal knowledge. I.e. some day ago I was curios about methane plant total lifecycle impact compared to solar panel disposal or solar concentrator plants, and happened across this article that brings up some interesting points, backs them up with some easily verifiable math and shows a greater complexity to a topic I thought was more straightforward: http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltdown-porter-ranch-means-energy-transition/ http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltd... and the problem is... I have no idea if anything written in there is actually true. it looks true, it sounds a reasonable and balanced analysis, but for that article there are three stating the contrary, and I have not the instruments for differentiating which is good and which is pushing an agenda, since it's not a clear case of partisanship (like you'd expect from articles pushed from 'the union of conservative scientists')

pavlov 10y ago
The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. That's not really the case. The Washington Post didn't have any of that when they published their original Watergate scoop. The story came from an anonymous source (the famous "Deep Throat"). The difference is that traditional investigative journalism has a process for establishing the likely credibility of anonymous sources. For a controversial piece, it ultimately comes down to the author's reputation and the editor-in-chief's judgment: will we bet the credibility of our paper on this story? So-called alternative media generally don't seem to care. Their writers will absorb from anonymous and second-hand sources without much editorial oversight. If a story is revealed false, they can just ignore or delete it. The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. Superficially they're both news websites with a miserable comment section, so the confusion is understandable in a way...

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

This is an age old counter intelligence tactic. Plant a loud, incoherent, emotionally charged agent posing as a supporter for something you don't like in order to discredit their unwitting supporters. Not asserting Alex Jones is doing this, rather that this type of tactic is not uncommonly used.

splawn 10y ago
"Alex Jones is an inside job!" Hehe, As much as that cracks me up and I would actually love for it to be true... I would need solid lines of evidence and multiple sources backing it up to accept that as true. (Which is exactly why infowars has always fell flat with me)
- narrowrail 10y ago
  The first time I heard the word 'globalist' was on Alex Jones' radio in ~2000. He was just as nutty then, so this sure would be a long con.
- Kroniker 10y ago
  There is a pretty good conspiracy that Alex Jones is actually Bill Hicks after the CIA gave him a make-over and use him as a controlled opposition source.
  - splawn 10y ago
    Has he ever addressed that publicly? It would be soooo delicious seeing him debunk a conspiracy using simple logic the same way others do to him. I wonder if his followers would be too far "gone" to be able to feel the cognitive dissonance that should invoke. I will have to look into this more tonight for a laugh.
- r_smart 10y ago
  On Joe Rogan's podcast, he claimed to have a lot of connections in the military and intelligence community. Not saying it's proof of anything, but it does make one think...

hutzlibu 10y ago

Just one bad apple? Seriously? I think is very hard to not find anything deeply rooten in the alternative media/conspiracy/whatever...