My background is a technologist who observed the Snowden story. I followed some of the details and was genuinely shocked at the revelations therein. I was loo

My background is a technologist who observed the Snowden story. I followed some of the details and was genuinely shocked at the revelations therein. I was looking at HN for more info at the time. But I also followed main stream media. The gulf between the technical details that were reported on HN and mainstream news sites was so large, it was clear to me that a damage limitation exercise was being undertaken. That in itself raised loads more questions for me. Here's a link to a video on Snowden's disappearing glasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 Cutting to the chase, if it is as I suggest it is - that most media is there as part of the governance structure to beam a particular type of messaging to us - you then have a few options. You can refuse what I say, and accept the media as is presented. This is surely the path of least resistance. If you care about the truth, you can look more deeply and research all ideas before accepting them as true. Just because you see something on TV does not make it true. My thesis is that news media is just production of a show, like a film or cartoon. You don't trust films or cartoons - so don't trust the news. Here's a fun example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs - check the folder change colour live on the news! Is it fair enough to manipulate what we see on account of a "green" budget? My bottom line nowadays, philosophically speaking, is that I am only prepared to accept as true that which I can confirm for myself via my own experience. This may sound a weak position, and it is perhaps. But I stand on solid ground as I am personally able to verify whatever I claim. With regards to events that are presented in the media, I take an aggressive deconstructive position, and ask questions such as: have I been provided evidence, am I being emotionally manipulated, is the story coherent, etc. I find my questioning frequently provides evidence that the story is not coherent, and can be dismissed. That again may sound weak, but the thing with truth is that it is resilient and not incoherent - when you are presented with an incoherent story then you can dismiss and ignore _all_ of it. So, my default position with media stories is to autohoax them and to lend far greater weight to personal experience.