How to think critically about what the media is telling you?

[Danny Deck]

17 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

not to mention every dem pol

The only Democratic politician I follow is Jeff Jackson from NC, and I don't think this can actually be applied to him. 

[mspart]

WR - Who governs this?   

Is it a lie when the Federal Government puts it out there?

Is it a lie when a think tank puts it out there?

Is it a lie when an academic puts it out there?

Is it a lie when an individual puts it out there?

Who is going to be the one to say this is acceptable and this over here is not acceptable?   And this is the problem with constructing such a mechanism.   Who is it that makes this determination and what are his/her priorities?   Would you have a known liar be that person?   Would you have someone known to be a straight shooter be that person?   And how do we make sure that type of person is the person with the power to say what is verboten and what is good?  

Let's think about this with real world things we have lived through.  

1)  Covid - Those that said having covid was just as good as getting the shot were censored.   The fact is that their position is true.   So who had the power to censor that truth and call it mis or disinformation?

2)   51 "intelligence" officers wrote a letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was Russia disinformation.   This was held as true by most in the media (excepting the NY Post of course) and all  naysayers were censored.   The fact is that these 51 people were wrong and knew they were wrong.   They spread misinformation that was useful to who?  It must have been useful to someone or it would have been called out.   Those that called it out were censored.  So who had the power to censor the truth and all those that spoke for the truth?  

You can see that these real world situations should give everyone pause when suggesting that misinformation can be regulated.   Sure it can, but who defines what is misinformation and who decides to censor it?   You have to be very careful when you pick this person or committee.  

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

24 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I say I don’t find certain lies, and certain people lying, unacceptable while being okay with others.  I say I am against it all, and have no problem with lies that damage others being reigned it, as that is not an element of freedom. 

i dont disagree. but would you allow ME to have the title of official arbiter of truth? 

My list of no includes many...

[Scouts Honor]

15 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

The only Democratic politician I follow is Jeff Jackson from NC, and I don't think this can actually be applied to him. 

he is running for NC state position..

not national

seems like a good guy...

[Scouts Honor]

oh, he was in congress.. i may have to look him up

[Caveira]

Didn’t the us gov repeal a law so that they can use propaganda against us ….. (I’m not certain I’m asking…….. ).   But seriously.  If you’re cool with aoc censoring you.   Or anyone in the gov for that matter it’s game over on freedom very soon.   They are not your friends…… they are not here to help you.   Neither is the media who lies to you constantly on both sides to support their party.   

[WrestlingRasta]

This is where these conversations get to the burn out point for me. At nowhere did I say anything about being okay with AOC, or anyone, censoring me or anyone else. I’ll leave it at what I said. Take it as you will. 

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

This is where these conversations get to the burn out point for me. At nowhere did I say anything about being okay with AOC, or anyone, censoring me or anyone else. I’ll leave it at what I said. Take it as you will. 

Well, to take it at what you said, someone has to be given the power to make the decision.   Who should that be and who gets to decide on that person?   It goes round and round. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

 It goes round and round. 

 

 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

You all just keep practicing, "Madam President."

[Paul158]

11 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

 

Are you in the path of the Hurricane? If so be safe. Its looks like it is going to be very strong.

[jross]

Here’s how this goes: A well-meaning committee decides what’s harmful and needs regulation. But soon, bribes and manipulation come into play, allowing those in power to control what is reigned in. What started as a noble cause ends up causing the very harm it sought to prevent.

The wealthy, media, and government already control the narrative and spin harmful misinformation, and they’re the same ones who would be allowed to “reign in” speech if given the chance.

[jross]

I folded on the vaccine to keep my job, but I'll fight to the death against speech restrictions.

[WrestlingRasta]

19 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Are you in the path of the Hurricane? If so be safe. Its looks like it is going to be very strong.

Thanks Paul.  Right now we are a little bit east of the center track.  Close enough that we're going to get a good, long storm, (they are calling for the storm to be 400 miles wide by time it gets to our latitude) but far enough that we shouldn't get any major damage.  Everyone around here on edge though because 1) flooding is big concern and 2) this storm's set up, timing, progress, and beginning tracks are all very similar to Ian a couple years ago.  Was looking to hit the same area, at about the same distance out, but from this point kept ticking east.  We went to bed, on Wednesday night, thinking it was going to land a couple hours north of us.  Woke up to catch the 5am update and responded with "oh ***duck**".   So a lot of people triggered around here.  That said, where we are at we should be relatively okay.  Storm surge to the north of us (Tampa area) I think is going to be the big thing to look out for.  

[Scouts Honor]

the country is littered with the unintended consequences of 'necessary' policy.

some of us learn from the past.

[Paul158]

10 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thanks Paul.  Right now we are a little bit east of the center track.  Close enough that we're going to get a good, long storm, (they are calling for the storm to be 400 miles wide by time it gets to our latitude) but far enough that we shouldn't get any major damage.  Everyone around here on edge though because 1) flooding is big concern and 2) this storm's set up, timing, progress, and beginning tracks are all very similar to Ian a couple years ago.  Was looking to hit the same area, at about the same distance out, but from this point kept ticking east.  We went to bed, on Wednesday night, thinking it was going to land a couple hours north of us.  Woke up to catch the 5am update and responded with "oh ***duck**".   So a lot of people triggered around here.  That said, where we are at we should be relatively okay.  Storm surge to the north of us (Tampa area) I think is going to be the big thing to look out for.  

Hunker down and be safe.

[WrestlingRasta]

15 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Hunker down and be safe.

Thank you.

[Lipdrag]

3 hours ago, jross said:

I'll fight to the death against speech restrictions.

Your death or the death of the speech restrictors?  Being willing to die for a cause is easy.  Everyone dies eventually so it really is not a huge deal.  The big decision is whether or not you are willing to help the other fellow die for his cause.  If not then it is not much of a pledge.  This, I think, is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  It gives us the means to make the speech restrictors die for their cause.  Do you (or I?) have the will to do it?  I don't bring this up as an accusation or to belittle at all.  I bring this up because I question if I will defend free speech to the point of making the other chap die for his cause.

[mspart]

WR  - Yes, be safe.   Where I live in the Seattle area, we only have a volcano (Rainier) and earthquakes to worry about.   There are places that get flooded when snow melts too fast along with abundant rainfall .  Rarely happens.    Good luck riding this storm out. 

mspart

Edited Wednesday at 03:55 PM by mspart

[jross]

15 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Your death or the death of the speech restrictors?  Being willing to die for a cause is easy.  Everyone dies eventually so it really is not a huge deal.  The big decision is whether or not you are willing to help the other fellow die for his cause.  If not then it is not much of a pledge.  This, I think, is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  It gives us the means to make the speech restrictors die for their cause.  Do you (or I?) have the will to do it?  I don't bring this up as an accusation or to belittle at all.  I bring this up because I question if I will defend free speech to the point of making the other chap die for his cause.

It depends. I'd start with civil disobedience and legal action. But if a civil war broke out, I'd take on the soldier role.

 

[red viking]

11 minutes ago, jross said:

It depends. I'd start with civil disobedience and legal action. But if a civil war broke out, I'd take on the soldier role.

 

This  isn't rocket science. NONE of us have time to investigate the legitimacy of every conspiracy theory and claim out there. Best thing to do is find a reputable news source that is widely recognized as not being on the fringe, like MSNBC or Fox News. Personally, I go with Reuters and BBC for most of my news. 

A good sign that they are reputable, without actually looking it up? The stories are a lot more boring, in general, than the distortions that the fringe media provides. Real news typically isn't very exciting or scary. If you're one of those people getting riled up by the news every day, you're probably listening to Fox, MSNBC, or something even worse. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:45 PM by red viking

[Lipdrag]

Official Disinformation (much more of a problem than Misinformation) - what to do when that is the problem?

https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2024/09/24/is-washington-distorting-the-numbers-n2645170

 

FBI - Wrong

BLS - Wrong

Census - Wrong

Etc. etc.  It would be fine if the wrong was a "noise" component and showed a random walk on both sides of the truth.  But when the WRONGs are always supporting a narrative from one side of the political aisle - which the swamp creatures happen to agree with - then we have a problem.  The "professionals and experts" better get better at random wrongness because right now their serial wrongness in support of one side has obliterated the credibility of our neutral institutions.

When law and order oriented people know the FBI is suspect and corrupt then their is a problem.

[Lipdrag]

36 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

then their is a problem.

Who is the idiot who posted this?!?

I apologize to my brethren (and sistren) on this board.  My grammar, punctuation, and self-proofreading have eroded.  I used reign instead of rein recently.  I mistype and/as; the/then/them/that, etc.  You deserve better attention to detail and I intend to raise my game.

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Who is the idiot who posted this?!?

I apologize to my brethren (and sistren) on this board.  My grammar, punctuation, and self-proofreading have eroded.  I used reign instead of rein recently.  I mistype and/as; the/then/them/that, etc.  You deserve better attention to detail and I intend to raise my game.

but sum times them their is what use talk'n bout

[jross]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

This  isn't rocket science. NONE of us have time to investigate the legitimacy of every conspiracy theory and claim out there. Best thing to do is find a reputable news source that is widely recognized as not being on the fringe, like MSNBC or Fox News. Personally, I go with Reuters and BBC for most of my news. 

A good sign that they are reputable, without actually looking it up? The stories are a lot more boring, in general, than the distortions that the fringe media provides. Real news typically isn't very exciting or scary. If you're one of those people getting riled up by the news every day, you're probably listening to Fox, MSNBC, or something even worse. 

Imagine if the Ministry of Truth was controlled Republicans with the power to act on these survey results.

• 59% of Republican voters favor home confinement for individuals who support climate change policies, except for emergencies.
• 55% of Republican voters support fines for individuals who speak on the impacts of climate change.
• 48% of Republican voters think governments should fine or imprison individuals who publicly support climate change science.
• 47% of Republican favor a government tracking program for those who support climate change policy.
• 29% of Republican voters support temporarily removing custody from parents who support climate change.

Note: these statements do not reflect actual Republican views but are a fictional scenario for illustrative purposes.  Change the wording from Republicans to Democrats, and from climate change to Covid, and you have real facts. (survey)

All the 'reputable news' outlets would follow the official narrative, with no public debate allowed.