6 ms·

> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions. Alternative media isn

by platz 4y ago

> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions. Alternative media isn't very good at presenting basic facts correctly, something institutions still do well and can only spin so far. Alternative media outright lies about facts.

prepend 4y ago
For me, it’s not that I can’t differentiate, but that it’s tiresome. Major news sources frequently blend fact and opinion so it’s extra effort to read their material rather than to just read the source directly. This doesn’t mean I read “alternative media” but being slightly better than a cesspool doesn’t mean I want to use them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tppiotrowski 4y ago
> I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Parent said they look for source material, not alternative media
somenameforme 4y ago
And what is your take on Brian Sicknick [1]? He's the officer who died following the January 6th riots. [1] All big media sites ran an identical story. He was not only killed, but he was bludgeoned to death, in the head, by a rioter wielding a fire hydrant. Quite the visceral and disturbing imagery. The problem is that it was not true, at all. Not only was he not killed by rioters - the medical examiner would later testify that he was completely physically unharmed as a consequence of the riots. He didn't even die on January 6th, and was texting his brother that evening. He died the next day following a series of strokes, from a preexisting clot in his brain. Any media outlet which did even the bare minimum of research would have known it was a lie: contact the brother, the hospital, the coroner's office (seeking only a date confirmation), let alone actually having done any real investigation whatsoever into the claims. But they didn't. Politicians, including the president (who all would have had 100% certainty that he was not killed) then continued to actively lie to the public and exploit his death for political gain, even including having a formal ceremony at the Capital Rotunda that's been traditionally reserved for individuals such as Rosa Parks and RBG. When it was finally revealed to be a lie, where was the reckoning? An exploited media anxious to discover how and why they were misled, and hold those responsible accountable? For that matter what of holding the politicians accountable for their own behavior? They were actively and maliciously lying and propagandizing a man's death on a national level. Instead, the media tried to shift the story to the strokes being caused by pepper spray - which was also another completely fabricated lie with no basis in reality. Then when the chief medical examiner refused to play ball, they just buried the story. There was 0 interest in the truth from the beginning to end. And here you are saying the big media is good at presenting basic facts and can only spin so far. This is not a swipe at you, but rather emphasizing how they're able to really get away with this. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick
- platz 4y ago
  media was led astray by law-enforcement officials and delay from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. After the results were finally published, the information got out and was covered on media outlets (such as the WSJ etc) .. You're looking for perfection in an atmosphere that is genuinely a fog of war and cherry picking 1 example. the point is that statistically speaking your better off with instituitonal media over alternative media. Institutions will still lead to the right answer over a long time scale Compared to whatever other non-institutional media you look at. Obviously, in any case consider many sources, weight them appropriately, consider recency of the data, and synthesize knowledge according to bayesian principles. If you still disagree, what non-institutional sources do you prefer, and what do you think their track record is compared to instituional media, and will I be able to find examples even worse for them than the one you linked.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    There was no 'fog of war', as this went on for months. The ceremony I spoke of happened nearly a month after his death, on February 3rd. I'm not looking for perfection - merely some vague concern for the truth over agenda, and I'm not finding it. And the idea the media was misled, instead of a participant in misleading, is rather belied by their lack of their concern about such 'deception.' Were this a case where they were genuinely misled, this would have been grounds for a defacto inquisition. Instead not only did they seem completely unconcerned about that, they actively tried to keep pretending he was killed - even when it became clear he was not. They never pursued, in the slightest, why they just lied to the American people for months. Sites, such as YouTube, which claim to care about disinformation still host hundreds of videos pretending he was killed. And it's not a cherry picked example. The media has been rife with lies as of late. The issue is that this is one where there's no way to do what you're trying to do, and argue for some sort of plausible deniability.
    - platz 4y ago
      You ignored my question. What's your alternative?

by platz 4y ago

prepend 4y ago

For me, it’s not that I can’t differentiate, but that it’s tiresome. Major news sources frequently blend fact and opinion so it’s extra effort to read their material rather than to just read the source directly. This doesn’t mean I read “alternative media” but being slightly better than a cesspool doesn’t mean I want to use them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tppiotrowski 4y ago

> I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Parent said they look for source material, not alternative media

somenameforme 4y ago

And what is your take on Brian Sicknick [1]? He's the officer who died following the January 6th riots. [1] All big media sites ran an identical story. He was not only killed, but he was bludgeoned to death, in the head, by a rioter wielding a fire hydrant. Quite the visceral and disturbing imagery. The problem is that it was not true, at all. Not only was he not killed by rioters - the medical examiner would later testify that he was completely physically unharmed as a consequence of the riots. He didn't even die on January 6th, and was texting his brother that evening. He died the next day following a series of strokes, from a preexisting clot in his brain. Any media outlet which did even the bare minimum of research would have known it was a lie: contact the brother, the hospital, the coroner's office (seeking only a date confirmation), let alone actually having done any real investigation whatsoever into the claims. But they didn't. Politicians, including the president (who all would have had 100% certainty that he was not killed) then continued to actively lie to the public and exploit his death for political gain, even including having a formal ceremony at the Capital Rotunda that's been traditionally reserved for individuals such as Rosa Parks and RBG. When it was finally revealed to be a lie, where was the reckoning? An exploited media anxious to discover how and why they were misled, and hold those responsible accountable? For that matter what of holding the politicians accountable for their own behavior? They were actively and maliciously lying and propagandizing a man's death on a national level. Instead, the media tried to shift the story to the strokes being caused by pepper spray - which was also another completely fabricated lie with no basis in reality. Then when the chief medical examiner refused to play ball, they just buried the story. There was 0 interest in the truth from the beginning to end. And here you are saying the big media is good at presenting basic facts and can only spin so far. This is not a swipe at you, but rather emphasizing how they're able to really get away with this. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick

platz 4y ago
media was led astray by law-enforcement officials and delay from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. After the results were finally published, the information got out and was covered on media outlets (such as the WSJ etc) .. You're looking for perfection in an atmosphere that is genuinely a fog of war and cherry picking 1 example. the point is that statistically speaking your better off with instituitonal media over alternative media. Institutions will still lead to the right answer over a long time scale Compared to whatever other non-institutional media you look at. Obviously, in any case consider many sources, weight them appropriately, consider recency of the data, and synthesize knowledge according to bayesian principles. If you still disagree, what non-institutional sources do you prefer, and what do you think their track record is compared to instituional media, and will I be able to find examples even worse for them than the one you linked.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  There was no 'fog of war', as this went on for months. The ceremony I spoke of happened nearly a month after his death, on February 3rd. I'm not looking for perfection - merely some vague concern for the truth over agenda, and I'm not finding it. And the idea the media was misled, instead of a participant in misleading, is rather belied by their lack of their concern about such 'deception.' Were this a case where they were genuinely misled, this would have been grounds for a defacto inquisition. Instead not only did they seem completely unconcerned about that, they actively tried to keep pretending he was killed - even when it became clear he was not. They never pursued, in the slightest, why they just lied to the American people for months. Sites, such as YouTube, which claim to care about disinformation still host hundreds of videos pretending he was killed. And it's not a cherry picked example. The media has been rife with lies as of late. The issue is that this is one where there's no way to do what you're trying to do, and argue for some sort of plausible deniability.
  - platz 4y ago
    You ignored my question. What's your alternative?