3 ms·
To be fair, if the best endorsement you can provide for the Economist is that they tend to be fairly accurate, then it doubles my resolve to be skeptical and vi
by lowkey 5y ago
To be fair, if the best endorsement you can provide for the Economist is that they tend to be fairly accurate, then it doubles my resolve to be skeptical and vigilant of any claims made by media.
This article sounds reasonable, even logical - and it may be, but I was manipulated by so much propaganda in the past weeks about the Ukraine situation that I no longer trust any source without verification from multiple sources that I seek out.
Propaganda is by far most effective on those who believe themselves immune to its effects. The first casualty of war is the truth.
For example, how many of you believe you are not manipulated by Ads and yet companies spent billions and billions to advertise to you. Why would they do that if it had no impact?
- bluejekyll 5y agoI used some weaselly words there, mostly because I agree with your broader point that it’s important to question sources, question the information. There is media that tends to do a decent job on fact checking sources, etc. At the end of the day, all I can do is go off the track record of those sources, and that’s why for pretty much any media source the best we can say is tend and fairly accurate because even if they are telling the truth most of the time, there is a question on if it contains all the context and nuance.