3 ms·
I'm saying that you can't know the reality, nor can you know the reality from what is presented by the media. You seem to think you can discern something usefu
by verisimi 4y ago
I'm saying that you can't know the reality, nor can you know the reality from what is presented by the media. You seem to think you can discern something useful from what the media says. I'm saying that all you can notice is when the media is pushing a particular narrative, you don't know the underlying truth. Unless you have personally verified it. And no one does.
- anigbrowl 4y agoThis is just solipsistic paranoia. People can and do research subjects on their own initiative. Media outlets typically credit expert opinions so people can also look into those experts and see if they're influential in their field, what their publication and citation history is etc. 'The media' is not a monolith, but rather an industry that delivers information with a distribution of timeliness, reliability, and neutrality. Your approach is less 'don't believe everything you read' and more 'you can't believe anything, everyone is lying, getting at the truth is basically impossible.'
- verisimi 4y agoMy approach is to be clear about the difference between what I know and believe. Accreditation, publication and citation mean nothing to me. Experts mean nothing to me. Flattering titles mean nothing to me. I want to hear the argument, and I want to understand how I can verify it for myself. If I can't verify it - and climate change as presented is unverifiable, unfalsifiable - then what am I meant to do with all these heartfelt beliefs? Should I believe them anyway because everyone else does? What relation do lots of earnest beliefs (and some dishonest, alarmist mouthpieces - the media) have to do with the truth?