We're free to change the channel, but we don't. They grab our attention because that's what they're paid to do. How can we rise above our faith in commercial news?
Commercial News
- Thread starter metu
- Start date
Voice of God
Harmless Bum
By not watching news from tv at all. Searching and following few good news sites in the web and making up your own mind is much more rewarding.
Nowadays TV is good for entertainment and not much more.
Nowadays TV is good for entertainment and not much more.
Edgecrusher
God To The Godless
Voice of God
Harmless Bum
Of course they're not, that's why I said to follow a few and make up your own mind, because in web you'll find news that are unbalanced to several sides and promote bigger variety of points of view. So by following a few that are "tilted" to the opposite sides, you can get more varied picture of the actual news. In TV the unbalancedness (is that a word?) is not so varied + usually articles in news sites carry more information (even if it is not neutral) than the average 3 minute tv-story.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Suppose I spend an hour a day for a month researching a single province in Afghanistan, then I spend an hour a day for a month researching my local education system, then I spend an hour a day for a month researchin the terrorism in Northern Ireland. That's three months. How much will you learn watching tv news for an hour a day for three months.
Information on the internet is a nightmare, but there is a lot of variety. When you read from enough different sources it starts to become obvious what the angle of the site is. The library is a better source. Variety is the key.
Information on the internet is a nightmare, but there is a lot of variety. When you read from enough different sources it starts to become obvious what the angle of the site is. The library is a better source. Variety is the key.
Edgecrusher
God To The Godless
Probably none, but it's the sort of think you could research on the internet to make sure if you really care.
I'm gonna give you some support here, though, Edge. I'm going to address the general bias of internet news sources.
The way I see it, the internet is the new front in the Cold War. It is dominated by extremist ideologues who manipulate news stories to fit their agendas. While commercial news networks seek to control our view of the world, so do most internet news sites.
The difference is that the internet sites take less money to maintain. This makes them relatively free from corporate manipulation, but also free to spew well disguised propaganda. The global socialist propaganda machine did not die with the Soviet Union; it has gotten more clever.
The steady stream of socialist propaganda, cleverly disguised as anti-Americanism cleverly disguised as anti-Bushism, is like a tidal wave of certainty. The most impressionable people, especially the young, are being swept away by this wave.
They fight what they are sure is the good fight with all the zealotry of a lunatic. They act as though brainwashed in a low-budged '50s sci-fi movie. They clame that anyone who disagrees is brainwashed. They attack levels of literacy and any other weakness they can find with their harsh certainty. They change the topic and set traps because they are so sure that they are right and anyone who disagrees must be shown to be a fool. All this must be done in the name of the cause.
---------------------------
When I was researching the Afghani transition in the week before the elections, I read the most horrific predictions. Every source I could find predicted wide-spread bloodshed. I was honestly terrified. I read maybe fifty sources as I was puting together an argument that things were so horrible in Afghanistan.
This was my first profound lesson on how skeptical one has to be.
---------------------
I read an article from a guy who stated that US special forces were active in the Sahara. I wondering how he knew they were from the US rather than French, British, South African, Australian, or mercenaries. As I read further, the author stated as fact which specific guerrilla group sabotaged a specific oil pipeline in Colombia.
I did a little picking around and found that he wrote that article from Sweeden. I did some more surfing and found that he was cited as a source in... well I found four or five in less than a half-hour, I probably could have found thousands.
This was my second profound lesson on how skeptical one has to be.
-----------------------------------
I don't need a third. I can sniff out that sneaky socialist bullshit like a dog sniffin' after a 'coon.
I'm gonna give you some support here, though, Edge. I'm going to address the general bias of internet news sources.
The way I see it, the internet is the new front in the Cold War. It is dominated by extremist ideologues who manipulate news stories to fit their agendas. While commercial news networks seek to control our view of the world, so do most internet news sites.
The difference is that the internet sites take less money to maintain. This makes them relatively free from corporate manipulation, but also free to spew well disguised propaganda. The global socialist propaganda machine did not die with the Soviet Union; it has gotten more clever.
The steady stream of socialist propaganda, cleverly disguised as anti-Americanism cleverly disguised as anti-Bushism, is like a tidal wave of certainty. The most impressionable people, especially the young, are being swept away by this wave.
They fight what they are sure is the good fight with all the zealotry of a lunatic. They act as though brainwashed in a low-budged '50s sci-fi movie. They clame that anyone who disagrees is brainwashed. They attack levels of literacy and any other weakness they can find with their harsh certainty. They change the topic and set traps because they are so sure that they are right and anyone who disagrees must be shown to be a fool. All this must be done in the name of the cause.
---------------------------
When I was researching the Afghani transition in the week before the elections, I read the most horrific predictions. Every source I could find predicted wide-spread bloodshed. I was honestly terrified. I read maybe fifty sources as I was puting together an argument that things were so horrible in Afghanistan.
This was my first profound lesson on how skeptical one has to be.
---------------------
I read an article from a guy who stated that US special forces were active in the Sahara. I wondering how he knew they were from the US rather than French, British, South African, Australian, or mercenaries. As I read further, the author stated as fact which specific guerrilla group sabotaged a specific oil pipeline in Colombia.
I did a little picking around and found that he wrote that article from Sweeden. I did some more surfing and found that he was cited as a source in... well I found four or five in less than a half-hour, I probably could have found thousands.
This was my second profound lesson on how skeptical one has to be.
-----------------------------------
I don't need a third. I can sniff out that sneaky socialist bullshit like a dog sniffin' after a 'coon.
Similar threads
