Response to @littlescribe - Fake Media - Debunking the Conspiracy Theory
@littlescribe posted THIS article which is a decent read. I found myself writing a reply and I decided I would make it as a post here instead.'
I turned off the mainstream media YEARS ago. I only watch parts of it as our paths cross linked to something on the internet. The longer I go without watching it the harder it is to stomach it. You see if I happen to be at a doctors office or some other location outside of my house with a television going I do have opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I pay quite a bit of attention since it is not something I typically have running in the background anymore. It is SO obvious and has me grimacing and frowning frequently. The bias and agenda becomes very clear. VERY CLEAR. In Journalism what we now call NEWS was once called an editorial. It is an opinion piece. That used to be clearly marked and was not the bulk of the news. True journalism is supposed to present you with all the facts with an attempt at no bias towards interpreting those facts and let you make your own decision. That is extremely RARE these days.
Now if I go to a site like infowars and watch Alex Jones I can see the clear bias there as well. It is not true journalism either. Such reporting is VERY rare these days, and that is truly a shame.
So what people are calling FAKE news in reality is the predominance of editorials being presented as fact. This is all over the place. Yet as one considers the FAKE news and why it is being mentioned now. With the presidential election going to Trump some prominent people such as Obama came out attacking FAKE NEWS. They made a list of sites and people that they called FAKE. This was basically anyone that did not agree with the corporate mainstream media.
This of course resulted in a back lash. Those sites are no more fake media than the sites that are labeling them as such. So this list, and prominent politicians talking about it DID NOT enter our lives until then. It is not unusual to expect pushback.
For @littlescribe you only saw PART of the examples. Some of us have been watching them for years. I happen to be a supporter of Ron Paul in both the 2008, and 2012 campaigns.
If you have time watch this comedy clip from John Stewart years ago. This stuff really happened and it was far more pervasive than what John Stewart revealed. It happened in 2008 as well. I think John Stewart sums it up nicely when he says "How did Ron Paul become the thirteenth floor of a building?"
That news was censored so heavily and obviously and across the board, and not by ASSOCIATED PRESS. That could actually be called fake, or perhaps the term CORRUPTED news might be more palatable? Yet consider the list and the push for fake news began on corporate media and with politicians such as Obama endorsing and talking about it.
These days it is more geared to SHAPING minds than it is INFORMING them.
In the World War 2 era this was known as propaganda. It was not considered a good thing.
Steem On!
I agree! I have not watched corporate media or even had a TV on in 10+ years. I can't stand all the red flags in my head (logical fallacies) as they tell you "everybody knows..." (banwagon), "your crazy if..." (ad-hominem), "but what's really important is.." (red-herring), all of which are the definition of propaganda.
I heard the fake media reported that Obama will not be the only president who ran his term without every hitting 3.0 GDP. But, he is the only one who went 7 years, 315 days without hitting 3.0 GDP. Then he told them to "Fix Dat".
The logical fallacies are all over the place. Unfortunately, they also happen at places like Infowars with Alex Jones. It seems when people have a bias or agenda that they tend to fall back on generalizations, appeal to authority, and the bandwagon, ad-hominem, and red herring versions you mention.
It is truly bad. Yes, it exactly is PROPAGANDA. The term was pretty new in World War 2 and was considered a bad thing. It is pretty sad when that has become the accepted and predominant form of "news".
Hey, thanks for the mention @dwinblood! I think you did a nice response here. Dare I say a rebuttal? I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2008. I voted for Gary Johnson this time around. And I agree--NO mention of these guys in MSM.
It's a big problem. It IS censored. It IS biased. It IS concocted and editorial. It IS, for all intents and purposes, ridiculous.
They don't pull all of their news from AP. They make their own stories as well, and they also decide WHAT stories air. Who cares where they're from? They decide what to air. I explain this in my post. I agree it is biased and censored.
But I'm not sure when we can officially cross over into conspiracy, when what is likely going on is the same thing that goes on in any environment that involves money and power. The more centralized it is, the more centralized the policies and dogmas are.
So whoever owns these networks is responsible for the groupthink that takes place not because they are conspirators, but because they can!
If you owned a network that large, you'd be tempted to print what suited you as well. If you owned the network, how do we know you would not have made Ron Paul the "new top tier?" It would take a very strong, morally right person, not easily swayed by public opinion or fiscal obligations to investors, to hold true to TRUE journalism, at that level.
I think we're more likely to find a unicorn, personally.
I agree with you IF the person owning the media can also lobby the people who make the laws to ensure protected status and make competition against them difficult. If the government and protectionism is not involved then you are 100% correct they can spin whatever narrative they want. Yet the consumer can also decide I don't like this network and cease doing business with them.
The problem is that 5 corporations own almost ALL of the media in the U.S. I don't know about the rest of the world. They also all collude and work together. We have a label for that... cartel.
So they have effectively silenced competition. Yet thanks to the internet competition FOUND A WAY. When that competition is starting to do well, it is suddenly being called FAKE NEWS.
Some of the alt media could be considered FAKE or BIASed news. Yet it also depends on if people realize CONSPIRACY THEORY does not mean CONSPIRACY FACT. It is okay to talk about theories. It is actually a good thing. It is just not good to push them as an absolute fact without welcoming challenge to them. Yet we have been conditioned (largely by the media) to treat those two words in a very specific way mentally when we hear them.
It is very much like someone shouting blasphemer, or heretic. People close their mind and refuse to even consider listening.
EDIT: True journalism was more common a few decades ago that it is now. They push pretty hard teaching it in journalism classes. It is only perhaps within the last two decades that we've become to see it nearing extinction.
OK. Good argument--silencing competition and all. I mean, we're just getting into the monopoly argument really. The monopoly is protected here. And the quality of service suffers due to lack of competition. The difference is, as with the business enterprise of healthcare, we actually have a product or service that also happens to affect human lives in a drastic way. We're not just talking a massage or a trip to the circus. But an actual service that can have a huge affect on how society at large operates.
And THIS is why people want to call it a conspiracy--because it's a product of business that ALSO happens to cause problems on a social scale.
But we can say this about any service that has a corner on its market, such as Apple and PC. I mean, are these guys conspirators because they completely redesigned how human beings interact and process information and do business? Depending on the critic, these guys are either conspirators, or they are innovators.
Just because we don't LIKE a product someone produces, and we don't LIKE how it monopolizes the market and affects the masses, does not a conspiracy make. Does it?
But you make a great point. We're teetering at the very least.
A true monopoly can only exist long by two methods.
Monopoly can only last in TRUE FREE MARKET CAPITALISM during condition 1 above. Yet people don't complain about such monopolies because they are not perceived as a negative. The rest of monopolies you can typically trace their power to political and government maneuverings insuring competitors were not allowed to compete.
So I am not afraid of the market. Monopolies of the historical negative type I do fear, and dislike. Yet I now know that they are not necessarily a product of capitalism itself. They are a product of capitalism + government. Yet if you remove capitalism it still happens then. A monopoly is more about power. It doesn't need to be simply about money. Socialist and Communist governments tend to end up with similar problems. The problem ultimately comes down to GOVERNMENT, and its right to dictate rules to others. If you can corrupt and influence that government then "monopoly" style powers are yours for the taking.
And yes... the 5 corporations have definitely tapped into this. They are largely the entity responsible for getting all of those government "representatives" elected. :)
EDIT: Until now... and their traditional powers are under assault. I see FAKE NEWS as them attempting to fight back and retain their monopoly.
OK. You win. I think that is the difference: government.
Heheh... I don't consider it winning. We were on a journey together. You had good points. Winning was never my goal, just sharing.
I know. :0)
I voted for Gary Johnson now and in 2012. I wasn't too happy with Gary and especially his choice of VP this time around by the end, but I was hoping we could get the Libertarian Party above 5%.
I was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.
I was a Ron Paul supporter. The only campaign I have ever donated to at the National Level. Sigh, I liked your entire post, but ended up feeling sad about Ron.
It is the only time in my life I participated in the delegate process in both 2008 and 2012. In 2008 I was a delegate but only went to County. In 2012 I was a delegate and I pledged to Ron Paul and only went all the way up through state (aka - I stopped just shy of traveling to the last stage - nationals).
I met with other Ron Paul supporters about twice a week. We quizzed each other on Robert's Rules and other things required by the GOP so they could not attack us for not following the rules. We witnessed them ignore those rules when convenient, and enforce them when convenient. We watched them announce the results of a role call vote when the result was on the teleprompter before the vote was called. It was also the type of vote that when not ovewhelmingly one way was supposed to be called by a show of hands and people walking around counting them. This did not happen.
We watched them close caucuses and then reconvene them leaving the Ron Paul people out. We watched Ron Paul in the media be treated like he had been erased from existence... If there was a photo of Ron Paul and his family then once the media got a hold of it you might as well erase Ron Paul from that photo and just have his family standing there. That in a sense was FAKE news as it was not only censoring the news, it was reshaping it to report it in a way that was not factual.
That Ron Paul segment shows exactly why you can't "change politics from within." The Republicans and Democrats won't allow it in their respective parties. And as long as they control essentially the entire political narrative every election cycle - and the media willingly goes along with it (or helps create/control it) - nothing will change.
Yep, that was the last attempt by many of us. That was my attempt to fight from within the system. I discovered anarchism after that and I believe it to be ultimately the only thing that makes sense to me at this point. The system is rigged, and corrupt. Yet this ultimately is what becomes of any governance.
But it's fun to watch the establishment shit their pants! That was enjoyable to watch Trump saying things that made them squirm. Amazing times! Glad to be out of the country while all this happens.
This is great piece! I disagree with you on an inability to change the system though. Anarchy is not the answer it doesn't scale well. But it is possible to change this, to do it you need to actually reach into the lives of people and shape their perceptions. This is only now becoming possible for the common person. Putting up your hands and saying "well, we tried and failed so that's that!".
Is just defeatism and benefits nobody. Fact, each of these talking heads has a social media presence. Fact each of us is connected by six degrees of separation or less. The trick here is to tune the signal to what they need to hear and then make sure they hear you. You can be persuasive, but only you can be you being persuasive.
This echo chamber effect. It works both ways ya know. It's mostly just bots doing the curating and doing the echoing. Should be simple enough to figure out what's making them tick. If that means getting into the AP and other news orgs and gaining name recognition, then so be it.
My feeling is it will take all of us standing up at once and sending out a blast so loud it's heard across the internet for ages.
Now... Where to start?
I believe you can fix it BRIEFLY by the method you describe. The problem is I can find no examples of things that survive more than a generation (sometimes not even that long) before they are corrupted by human nature. That nature basically generally being those that want power and authority tend to acquire it simply because the rest of us would rather be doing other things than dealing with the things that grant that. Those that want power also tend to be the people that should not have it.
So can we fix things? Sure. Briefly. This has been done many times in history. Yet should we keep repeating the cycle, or should we try to fix it?
I do not believe anarchism instituted RIGHT NOW would work at all. It would require teaching critical thinking, logic, and reason at early ages, and teaching people to not give into generalizations, appeals to authority, etc.
It would require an innate understanding of the Non-Aggression Principle.
If those things happen I believe Anarchy could work quite well.
The problems in life tend to come from granting authority over others to other people.
I do not believe I have the right to tell you how to live if you are harming no one.
I do not believe a billion people have the right to tell you how to live if you are harming no one.
So as you said... where to start?
I did fight from within the system because I felt that we could start the process there.
Though from within I saw truly how rigged it is. I did not GIVE UP as you put it. I simply refocused. I do not see this as ultimately sustainable, but it may take it imploding upon itself before people will begin to resist the conditioning.
Ultimately the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. For that to work it has to be instilling the values that gave you these freedoms into the next generation. Have you ever noticed that most anarchists spent time in either military or prison? It's not a coincidence. Having one's freedom removed for a time makes one fight harder for it.
Anarchy means literally "without leaders". Leaders always emerge naturally.
All movements are led by someone who at some point exists on the hairy fringes of society, but who has some damned important things to say and can say things in a powerful and eloquent way.
Once the leader dies, the movement isn't long lived. It's because people want to be led. We're natural followers and leaders are scarce. Even more so when there hasn't been anything to test the mettle of the leader.
By definition though, you can never lead an anarchist movement ;)
I actually heard it means "without rulers". There is a difference between a ruler and leader.
EDIT: I can LEAD you to a location. That does not mean I rule you.
I can lead by example, that does not mean I rule you. There is a difference.
Archy derives from Archon a ruler. So yes you're right about the term.
But I'm right about human nature ;)
Fact is we have the same vision. Just different viewpoints on it.
We need better people, the current crop won't work. We've all turned into a freakish, nightmarish caricature of human potential.
It'd be like trying to lead teletubbies.
Best to see what we can do with the next generation. In the meantime it doesn't mean we have the right to give up trying within our own system. It is our duty as parents to make the world better for our children and their children.
Keep working it until it's plaint. This isn't 2008 anymore, your voice has weight and it carries.
Oh I still fight. I simply don't fight from within their system. I fought from within the system in 2008 and 2012. I fight by speaking with others. Sharing ideas. Trying to help people learn about generalizations, appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, etc. Plant seeds in the minds of people where and when I can. I also have seeds planted in my mind by other people.
I too share the same feelings whenever I get a glimpse of television today.
The programming is just so blatant and in your face.
The lies are so monumental. And that is just from understanding the structure of the english language.
If I actually know something about what is being reported upon, the dis- and mis-information is just so huge that the only thing to call it is Fake-news.
If you study any form of critical thinking and become familiar with the many types of logical fallacies it is difficult to go ten minutes of televised news without hearing such fallacies.
Generalizations, Appeals to Authority, and Ad Hominem attacks are extremely common on mainstream media.
They also happen with people like Alex Jones as well on Infowars. When people have a clear bias and agenda these types of fallacies tend to emerge naturally and be very common.
I really don't know how to place Alex Jones. I was thankful when I found him. He was the hate and anger I needed at that time when finding so much shit; when connecting a few too many dots.
You are correct, Alex Jones is very propaganda heavy, and fallacies out the ying-yang. And, even now I do not know if his news was more accurate, or just what I wanted to hear.
But, after that phase, I left for much better informed and altogether better news information found on all kinds of little, one-man alt-news sites.
I still check out Alex Jones occasionally. Mostly because his site will sometimes point out interesting things. Rather than digest it all there I use those interesting things as kind of ideas for me to go research them on my own from as many different sources as I can find.
I've basically come to the stage where I don't believe any person, or source without thinking about it myself. I work on probabilities. If my doctor says "you have X and need to do Y" then the probabilities are very high they are correct, so I tend to act, observe, etc. As I have also been told things by doctors that nearly cost me my life that ended up being incorrect.