Typical right wing argument to legitimize fringe positions. it's not just the right that has fake news, everyone does it. So you might as well listen to the right!
I don't think they are exactly the same but they are the same in the sense that they all spread propaganda. Some more some less, some more blunt some more subtle. If u let them in long enough they can get u stay in their little traps.
Thanks I'll check it out. Although I find it rare these days when news don't try to persuade u towards a certain view point. Even when a piece is pure facts, it's often selective facts, which is just as dangerous.
News flash! It's been the Age of Propaganda since people started banding together for survival. Ugah wants best firepit place from Nooga. Ugah makes blatant gunt-lies about Nooga and gets him punted down the social ladder. Ugah gets best firepit place! But Voograh is watching him now... Caution, logical (calm, non-emotional) thought, research and staying away from alarmist sources is key. Twitter rots your brain.
Just listen to science and comedy podcasts instead of politics. I find professional scientists and science communicators to be more willing to change their viewpoints when solid empirical evidence is presented counter to their initial belief. Likewise for comedy. I personally think finding humor in difficult topics to be healthier and easier to find common ground.
It's not that hard if you listen to multiple sources. NPR actually is very good about reporting the facts.
For political or social news, it's sometimes more difficult to sift through than a polarizing science article. Ultimately you try to find the source of something only to end up sifting through articles that point to each other as the source. As someone seeking the truth and valuing it...to a sometimes annoying degree, I've come to accept that our observational findings are still be blinded to our subjective biases, and those biases are be anchored by what we collectively know or feel at the time. Not only was media tech different in 94 (or 74), the prevalent feelings were was well. Fresh from Soviet union breaking down and a quicker than normal war where US took down a regional power, there was more consensus to what America should do globally and where it was headed. In 2004, if it weren't for 9/11, there was a feeling China would've been the biggest FP issue. Instead, it was put in the background and we had the second Iraq War that was polarized both domestically and internationally. They're all different issues now, and as the world becomes more wired, more complex, and ironically more individually isolated, we all seem to have an idea of where it should be headed. If you were in a room with 100 other people and had to solve a problem without their internet, a pecking order and a plan would be resolved by the end of the day. Numbnuts Fredo, who watches Youtube Conspiracy videos all day would be in charge of the light switch, while contributors would divide up where they should work. With the internet, everyone's an expert. At work, we prize that diversity because we presume everyone was hired for a reason. Fredo, if he was hired, was hired because there was a role for being a numbnut who believes every 20 minute movie as the Truth.* For the world, there isn't a selective sample like how your employer hires, so everyone thinks their opinion is the best or will find a medium where it's at least valued. This makes politics and the two (or one) party system, a very flawed and incongruous model of belief. 90s liberals believed in international interventions (Somalia, Bosnia). Dubya Cons were gung ho about Iraq and still to this day want to war with Iran...maybe N. Korea and even China. 90s cons believed in Cap n Trade for Carbon emissions and some form of a federated, yet nationalized healthcare system. Cons today don't give a **** about details as long as they get a tax break for doing jack ****...and the right to complain about how doing something is worse than doing nothing. Rounding things back, finding a source is crucial in understanding how that idea came to be. It takes so much time, and there's no guarantee you'll find it if the source doesn't want to be found (disappointing internet...). Ideas also evolve away from the source, so people usually give up halfway because it probably doesn't benefit much to even find out. I guess a more forgiving approach is to accept that you have limited time and patience, so if there is a big or emotional topic, hear out the other person for a while and if it bothers you so much, then commit to finding out whether it's bullshit or not. Less drama, finger pointing, and demonizing the Other. Not sure what you do when you discover your neighbor's a Fredo, but flattery and praise gets you everywhere with those types. *Not to claim that it's more "common sensical" to lock everyone up in a room to hash out feelings n problems. Being physically present to find a consensus view doesn't scale well (in number or complexity) as we've seen in extremely large companies and governments that can't adapt well to swift or sudden change. The internet is only a way to facilitate large scale communication, but the webs of trust we use for face-to-face communication are clearly broken down, which has their own pros and cons.
Also, while you're fine tuning your sources. Understand there are lies of commission and lies of omission. IMO, Con sources seem to do the former more to build a narrative. They understand people track things easier if it's 7 points or less. Fox News commentary has 7 themes they routinely cycle and reinforce. "her emails", "Looters", "Benghazi", "Government Swamp", "Media Lies", "foreign invasion", etc... whether it's 30 minutes or an hour, don't break the 7. If there are 3 breaking topics. Address those, fill in 4 themes. 9 is the max. Lib sources are more guilty of the latter, either not to "dilute the message" or offend someone (corporate parent, advertiser, government patron). Lib media gives the aura of "reporting everything", which Trump and Bannon will attest to abusing (to break the 7 rule). Under reporting is a real problem and gives Con media legitimacy if only for weighting and more God awful source sifting. I don't know about the biases of international sources, but using those in your "source weighting" is almost necessary if you value facts.
Propaganda has always been here in our history. The only difference now is "The guy with the end of the world sign on the corner of the street" now has the ability (cheap and fast) to spread his/her word over and over again until you all watch it. Then with our wonderful technology of "in your face 24/7", eventually the low will power individuals believe it. Surviving it and your family 1. Teach your kids about media/charisma/technology", due diligence, research, follow your own path, etc 2. if you already have strong will power, you don't have to do anything else If your the type of person who has low will power and easily influenced, go live in a hut in the middle of nowhere with no internet and defiantly no wife/husband to give you their propaganda ....
Case in point - the right is manufacturing a narrative that Amy Barrett is under attack for her religion. Fox News, the Daily Mail, and Trump are talking about how the "left" is attacking her as a white colonizer and for her Religion. Yet there is no one calling her this and there hasn't been a single democrat of prominence suggesting her religion makes her unfit for the SCOTUS. They dig up some tweets about some random liberal saying just because you adopt black kids doesn't mean you aren't racist as an attack on her. This is the very definition of propaganda and manufacturing a false narrative that will get repeated here by the likes of @dachuda86 @Trader_Jorge @Commodore @Bandwagoner and others like them.
