fake news versus propaganda

UncleBuck said:

i've been noticing politico is about as bland and boringly factual as can be as well.

Click to expand...

MisterBouncyBounce said:

not to belabor things but i don't see how you can say this "I get the fact that the major news organizations are owned by billionaires and their corporations. Reporters working there know not to bite the hand that feeds them, usually."

and then say this " But I don't see the kind of bias and fakery that they are accused of from the left and the right.".

so you know there is inherent conflict but you don't see it manifesting malfeasance?
you know that NBC won't report honestly on cable issues, like monopolies or vetting an incoming FCC chairman or whatever.

they can't report honestly............you say you know that....."they know not to bite the hand that feeds them".........then it cannot be that they are reporting honestly. whether you see it or not.

the Washington post is owned by jeff bezos and so they will never report on Amazon honestly or look into their business practices for an expose.

you read in the story by the former N.Y. Times reporter that they write reports from hotels from what is given to them by gov. officials without even checking to see if there is another side to the story or if the facts match the reality.

well if you already knew that, then how can you say they aren't faking shit? making shit up.

the way disinformation gets passed, to get a seed planted in some heads, is to write a story with 4 things that are true and one thing that is not, the one thing you actually are using the story for.

you seem to give a break to the wash. post, like "they reported on more than that"........yeah, that's cover for the bullshit they slid underneath it, that there is a cabal of journalists acting as foreign propaganda puppets. it's fake and a lie because he cites no sources for it other than what amounts to "some guy told me so".
yeah cited sources for other things though......he must know then that citing sources is kind of important.

if a story is intentionally written with 4 true things and one false thing, that is deception.
the story was meant to deceive, doesn't matter how many true things are in it. it is deception.
a lie is deception.

journalists who know better than bite the hands that feed them....... must lie, so whoever approves and prints that lie is lying.

it is not in the mainstream media's interest to serve the people, it is to serve their share holders.

if you know that, it is impossible to conclude they is no fakery or deception. their bosses don't let them rat the bosses out to the public. they don't own the media so the media can ruin them.

pizzagate are not the kind of fake stories to look for, they are ludicrously fake. the shit that sounds like the truth is what needs to be scrutinized.

i think i've pretty much said enough, so you can have the last word and we can leave it at that.

i'm sure we have more common ground than not.

Click to expand...

MisterBouncyBounce said:

not to belabor things but i don't see how you can say this "I get the fact that the major news organizations are owned by billionaires and their corporations. Reporters working there know not to bite the hand that feeds them, usually."

and then say this " But I don't see the kind of bias and fakery that they are accused of from the left and the right.".

so you know there is inherent conflict but you don't see it manifesting malfeasance?
you know that NBC won't report honestly on cable issues, like monopolies or vetting an incoming FCC chairman or whatever.

they can't report honestly............you say you know that....."they know not to bite the hand that feeds them".........then it cannot be that they are reporting honestly. whether you see it or not.

the Washington post is owned by jeff bezos and so they will never report on Amazon honestly or look into their business practices for an expose.

you read in the story by the former N.Y. Times reporter that they write reports from hotels from what is given to them by gov. officials without even checking to see if there is another side to the story or if the facts match the reality.

well if you already knew that, then how can you say they aren't faking shit? making shit up.

the way disinformation gets passed, to get a seed planted in some heads, is to write a story with 4 things that are true and one thing that is not, the one thing you actually are using the story for.

you seem to give a break to the wash. post, like "they reported on more than that"........yeah, that's cover for the bullshit they slid underneath it, that there is a cabal of journalists acting as foreign propaganda puppets. it's fake and a lie because he cites no sources for it other than what amounts to "some guy told me so".
yeah cited sources for other things though......he must know then that citing sources is kind of important.

if a story is intentionally written with 4 true things and one false thing, that is deception.
the story was meant to deceive, doesn't matter how many true things are in it. it is deception.
a lie is deception.

journalists who know better than bite the hands that feed them....... must lie, so whoever approves and prints that lie is lying.

it is not in the mainstream media's interest to serve the people, it is to serve their share holders.

if you know that, it is impossible to conclude they is no fakery or deception. their bosses don't let them rat the bosses out to the public. they don't own the media so the media can ruin them.

pizzagate are not the kind of fake stories to look for, they are ludicrously fake. the shit that sounds like the truth is what needs to be scrutinized.

i think i've pretty much said enough, so you can have the last word and we can leave it at that.

i'm sure we have more common ground than not.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Let's not forget that disagreeing with somebody else's beliefs can be dangerous.

What's common about the following:

Teenage girls in high school shun and criticize a girl who is considered a slut.
Women in Iran are shocked if a woman refuses to cover her hair and will turn her in to the religious authorities if she doesn't correct her behavior. .
A mother in Afghanistan laughs when she sees her son beat her daughter.

The women in these examples are responding to protect the cultural norms by which they gain acceptance and success. In the case of the high school girls, they are acting to protect their relationships with boys in their social group. In the case of self policed religious doctrine, they are protecting the rules by which they gain acceptance in the Mosque. In the case of the mother in Afghanistan, she's protecting her relationship with her son because Afghani men don't live long in that society and she will most likely be dependent on the boy later in life.

Sometimes, believing in strange things has a purpose. It might not seem logical to an outsider.

Click to expand...

Hookabelly said:

I think I liked this post. LOL. The points above are some of the things I didn't agree with in the guy's book. So if I read your post in the right context, I agree w/ you. You were illustrating that in some cases people subscribe to beliefs/ideologies for safety reasons rather than forming them and then only associating with others who share them right? In the illustrations you mentioned above, (the last 2 anyway) the women were accepting these ideals for self preservation right?

ETA the other paragraph @Fogdog

Click to expand...