"What the media get wrong is..."

[DavidGYoung]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

If so, what is it, how do you think it is misrepresented and what do you imagine a spokesperson from the mainstream media would say in response?

[RabbiKnife]

Everything the so called mainstream media says is about money or power or appearances so I don’t believe any of it.

Haven’t watched “the news” in years

I

[DavidGYoung]

Today the BBC was covering the initial findings of the Osiris-Rex mission. Was that money, power or appearances?
And do you really disbelieve everything in their coverage of it, even down to the microscope pictures they showed?

[RabbiKnife]

Was there a part of I don’t watch that was unclear

And moi don’t believe anything presented is presented without a propaganda purpose

[DavidGYoung]

I was asking more about the first part of your post, where you categorise everything into three groups.

I'm not sure I understand your final sentence though.

[Fenris]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

So here's the thing. The media is completely wrong on topics that I know a lot about. Law enforcement, for example. Or religious Jews. Or the state of Israel. So it makes me wonder if they're also wrong about everything else.

[Slug1]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

If so, what is it, how do you think it is misrepresented and what do you imagine a spokesperson from the mainstream media would say in response?

I do look at headlines and narrative. Then I look for independent fact gatherers who have been censored from social media. If the fact gatherer's character is also being assassinated by the media and/or social media platforms, then it's clear what the fact gatherer is saying/relaying is close to or is actual truth. Which of course reveals how convoluted and false, most narratives via the media is/are.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

If so, what is it, how do you think it is misrepresented and what do you imagine a spokesperson from the mainstream media would say in response?

I do look at headlines and narrative. Then I look for independent fact gatherers who have been censored from social media. If the fact gatherer's character is also being assassinated by the media and/or social media platforms, then it's clear what the fact gatherer is saying/relaying is close to or is actual truth. Which of course reveals how convoluted and false, most narratives via the media is/are.

I think that this strategy for determining the truth is mind bogglingly bad. Their opinions are unpopular, their character is in question therefore they are probably telling the truth. People confuse this heuristic with actual critical thinking and learning. It is just as easy to use this to manipulate the perception of truth as any of the manipulation strategies you are using it to defend against. What does this actually amount to in practice if not rejecting sources that are critical or counter to your biases and seeking sources that confirm them? I know i'm missing all the nuance and wisdom of your position probably... still I can't bring myself to place the lionshare of the blame on mainstream media when you've exemplified the very thing that fed,molded and nurtured it into the thing that it is today. It's this way because that is what we watched, bought, clicked on, engaged with and subscribed to. If you think that you aren't exerting those same selection pressures on "independent fact gatherers" then subscribe to my patreon for more information. There is an old saying about hopping out of the frying-pan and into the fire, we are in a burning kitchen. If you pay for these traits and features with your money attention and engagement you should not be surprised when it looks like it is increasing, because it is, because we wanted it, because we demanded it! Why on earth would you trust that?

[DavidGYoung]

Take the example of the state of Israel.

What would you say the mainstream media get wrong about it?
What would you anticipate a spokesperson for the mainstream media to say in response?

[RabbiKnife]

I don’t care about a group that has no relevance to me.

[Fenris]

Take the example of the state of Israel.

What would you say the mainstream media get wrong about it?

Oh, I don't know. How about the fact that today, CBS news was reporting that Israel was bombing schools, hospitals, and homes. Without providing any context whatsoever. They were repeating Hamas talking points, helpfully provided for them by the "Gaza health ministry", which is run by (wait for it!) Hamas themselves.

In fact, Israel is responding to a pogrom against it's citizens, the butchery of men, women and children, who were raped, shot, stabbed, decapitated, and burnt alive. Who were abducted and forcibly carried away into the Islamist hellhole that Hamas turned Gaza into.

Why does Israel bomb those locations? Because Hamas, ignoring all laws of war (yes, they exist), has turned schools and hospitals into armed bunkers and missile launching sites. Hamas headquarters is actually under the Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. This is a war crime. 

You would think that a "news" organization would do at least a minimal amount of fact checking before parroting a terrorist organization's press releases.

I haven't seen any news organization talk about the Hamas Charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad and the murder of every Jew in the world.

What would you anticipate a spokesperson for the mainstream media to say in response?

"Something something both sides".

Because expecting even basic morality from a news organization is too much.

[Slug1]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

If so, what is it, how do you think it is misrepresented and what do you imagine a spokesperson from the mainstream media would say in response?

I do look at headlines and narrative. Then I look for independent fact gatherers who have been censored from social media. If the fact gatherer's character is also being assassinated by the media and/or social media platforms, then it's clear what the fact gatherer is saying/relaying is close to or is actual truth. Which of course reveals how convoluted and false, most narratives via the media is/are.

I think that this strategy for determining the truth is mind bogglingly bad. Their opinions are unpopular, their character is in question therefore they are probably telling the truth. People confuse this heuristic with actual critical thinking and learning. It is just as easy to use this to manipulate the perception of truth as any of the manipulation strategies you are using it to defend against. What does this actually amount to in practice if not rejecting sources that are critical or counter to your biases and seeking sources that confirm them? I know i'm missing all the nuance and wisdom of your position probably... still I can't bring myself to place the lionshare of the blame on mainstream media when you've exemplified the very thing that fed,molded and nurtured it into the thing that it is today. It's this way because that is what we watched, bought, clicked on, engaged with and subscribed to. If you think that you aren't exerting those same selection pressures on "independent fact gatherers" then subscribe to my patreon for more information. There is an old saying about hopping out of the frying-pan and into the fire, we are in a burning kitchen. If you pay for these traits and features with your money attention and engagement you should not be surprised when it looks like it is increasing, because it is, because we wanted it, because we demanded it! Why on earth would you trust that?

I believe you may be misunderstanding my post. I stated, "fact gatherers." There is no opinion and it is my opinion (pun intended) that their character IS questioned because of media/social media platforms reduced to the level of, as I also stated, character assassination. That way, those who do not care to know facts, focus on how unpopular they (the fact gatherers) are made out to be, based on the character assassination attempts.

By the way, while facts can be manipulated, many are out there gathering the real facts and setting truth straight. When facts are presented, there are limited options - confirm the facts, refute the facts (with facts, because mistakes can be made, or new information is brought to light), ignore the facts (denial), or attack the facts. We all know that facts cannot be "attacked" only confirmed or refuted... thus my point in mentioning the resort of character assassination (kill the messenger so truth is not brought to light).

I get your point concerning the people who dribble out some facts and then, to get the rest of the info, the pressure of subscribing is pushed. I can even agree that this is a form of manipulation to strong arm people but here is a fact :-) , usually the information they gathered, is available for those choosing to take/make the time to find the facts for themselves. Sure, it's easier to have some other fact gatherer do the work, but if they are willing to do the work, and if a person is willing to pay for a membership so they don't have to do all the work themselves, this manipulation is a gray area. For some, fully acceptable.

Kinda like fast food, I can take/make the time to go shopping for ingredients, then take/make the time to cook. Or, drive though a BK drive through, or take the time to sit at say, Texas Roadhouse to eat and I didn't have to do any of the work. I chose NOT to do any of the work, so I can't blame the restaurant that they manipulated me. So, in this light, I can't "blame" the fact gatherer if I choose to pay them to find facts for me.

At the end of the day, most "true" fact gatherers are shed in a bad light. This does not however, reduce the value of the facts they have gathered.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Do you hold a position on anything which, in your opinion, is misrepresented in the mainstream media?

If so, what is it, how do you think it is misrepresented and what do you imagine a spokesperson from the mainstream media would say in response?

I do look at headlines and narrative. Then I look for independent fact gatherers who have been censored from social media. If the fact gatherer's character is also being assassinated by the media and/or social media platforms, then it's clear what the fact gatherer is saying/relaying is close to or is actual truth. Which of course reveals how convoluted and false, most narratives via the media is/are.

I think that this strategy for determining the truth is mind bogglingly bad. Their opinions are unpopular, their character is in question therefore they are probably telling the truth. People confuse this heuristic with actual critical thinking and learning. It is just as easy to use this to manipulate the perception of truth as any of the manipulation strategies you are using it to defend against. What does this actually amount to in practice if not rejecting sources that are critical or counter to your biases and seeking sources that confirm them? I know i'm missing all the nuance and wisdom of your position probably... still I can't bring myself to place the lionshare of the blame on mainstream media when you've exemplified the very thing that fed,molded and nurtured it into the thing that it is today. It's this way because that is what we watched, bought, clicked on, engaged with and subscribed to. If you think that you aren't exerting those same selection pressures on "independent fact gatherers" then subscribe to my patreon for more information. There is an old saying about hopping out of the frying-pan and into the fire, we are in a burning kitchen. If you pay for these traits and features with your money attention and engagement you should not be surprised when it looks like it is increasing, because it is, because we wanted it, because we demanded it! Why on earth would you trust that?

I believe you may be misunderstanding my post. I stated, "fact gatherers." There is no opinion and it is my opinion (pun intended) that their character IS questioned because of media/social media platforms reduced to the level of, as I also stated, character assassination. That way, those who do not care to know facts, focus on how unpopular they (the fact gatherers) are made out to be, based on the character assassination attempts.

By the way, while facts can be manipulated, many are out there gathering the real facts and setting truth straight. When facts are presented, there are limited options - confirm the facts, refute the facts (with facts, because mistakes can be made, or new information is brought to light), ignore the facts (denial), or attack the facts. We all know that facts cannot be "attacked" only confirmed or refuted... thus my point in mentioning the resort of character assassination (kill the messenger so truth is not brought to light).

I get your point concerning the people who dribble out some facts and then, to get the rest of the info, the pressure of subscribing is pushed. I can even agree that this is a form of manipulation to strong arm people but here is a fact :-) , usually the information they gathered, is available for those choosing to take/make the time to find the facts for themselves. Sure, it's easier to have some other fact gatherer do the work, but if they are willing to do the work, and if a person is willing to pay for a membership so they don't have to do all the work themselves, this manipulation is a gray area. For some, fully acceptable.

Kinda like fast food, I can take/make the time to go shopping for ingredients, then take/make the time to cook. Or, drive though a BK drive through, or take the time to sit at say, Texas Roadhouse to eat and I didn't have to do any of the work. I chose NOT to do any of the work, so I can't blame the restaurant that they manipulated me. So, in this light, I can't "blame" the fact gatherer if I choose to pay them to find facts for me.

At the end of the day, most "true" fact gatherers are shed in a bad light. This does not however, reduce the value of the facts they have gathered.

I was talking more about the demand side of the equation. Unpopularity,  derision  and ad hominem attacks are a matter of who you are listening to, which is why one of the main reasons that this mechanism you have described cannot do what you think it does. On some level you must see how this reasoning is a permutation of the old enemy of my enemy is my friend adage.
I mean that can be a reasonably effective strategy when considering strategic alliances for an upcoming conflict, but the breadth of human history shows that this can become the groundwork for yet another future conflict as often as not. In the context of determining the truth or more specifically to my point as the motivation for what one should spend their time, money and attention on it is even less well correlated with desired outcomes.

Determining who is heterodox is heavily weighted by the orthodoxy of the supply that you yourself choose to consume, making it at the very least prone to selection bias if not quite the very definition of it. You are contributing to the demand for charged, controversial and or surly ideas and I do believe that the media and idea market has and will continue to supply as much of those as you want without any regard for the truth. because as I keep trying to express, you're not demanding a supply of  the truth instead you are asking for ancillary traits and behaviors that sometimes occur with the truth. I get it, I love the story of a rebel with a big idea too, first they laugh at you right? This is why I say that all you are doing is applying the same pressure to “independent fact gathers” to generate the plot points and hallmarks around a popular story about what happens when people tell the truth. There is no question in my mind that this is what has already happened. In our efforts to get away from the monster we molded with our desires we found a verdant virgin land and then demanded that it create an even more focused and efficient monster.

 I think maybe the worst aspect of this method though outside of the fact that it couldn't possibly distinguish between the things you want to in a predictable way, is that it is just as easy to use the persecuted visionary archetype to get people to “reject” you and thereby gain credibility with folks that are looking for rejects. So even if it was a good method it is painfully easy to exploit it to gain credibility for whatever nonsense a ne'er do well might want to smuggle in…or more likely just use to gain money, power and influence. This is not new, it is a classic tool of con-artists and manipulators of all stripes.

I guess it seems to me that people are attached to this idea of the persecuted visionary to the point that being persecuted gets conflated with being a visionary. It is such a powerful story, and it is even sometimes a true story. I wonder though, If you dropped that idea completely when evaluating the truth of ideas and the character of people would you lose anything of value at all. I get the impression that you don’t want to leave me with the impression that all you do is look for the most reviled and controversial person and then uncritically absorb their entire oeuvre…you critically review the facts, perhaps do additional research, maybe work through the equations yourself and then determine if you find the preponderance of all these things to be compelling or convincing or whatever right? So why not just do that without the added steps of allowing yourself to be influenced with things that are both irrelevant to the presented facts and a well known vector for manipulation?

[Slug1]

I guess it seems to me that people are attached to this idea of the persecuted visionary to the point that being persecuted gets conflated with being a visionary. It is such a powerful story, and it is even sometimes a true story. I wonder though, If you dropped that idea completely when evaluating the truth of ideas and the character of people would you lose anything of value at all. I get the impression that you don’t want to leave me with the impression that all you do is look for the most reviled and controversial person and then uncritically absorb their entire oeuvre…you critically review the facts, perhaps do additional research, maybe work through the equations yourself and then determine if you find the preponderance of all these things to be compelling or convincing or whatever right? So why not just do that without the added steps of allowing yourself to be influenced with things that are both irrelevant to the presented facts and a well known vector for manipulation?

While I read your entire post, your conclusion here is where I'd like to relay points. Personally, for me, I don't look for the most controversial fact gatherer and due to a level of attack against them, are they thus worthy of being listened to. One must discern "why" are they being attacked. Is it because they (on one extreme) spin "their" agenda and at the end of the day, the attack is against their agenda and thus, the narrative they spin in favor of their agenda is where attacks are focused? If so, I will not pursue such a show/channel or whatever means of broadcast they utilize. On another extreme, is what they put out factual, no agenda, no opinion, just facts and even better, as part of their fact filled editorial are all the resources listed so one can verify or refute what information they put out? I tend to utilize such "news" gatherers as a place to frequent. And yes, many I've frequented are limited to "free speech" platforms due to the "truth" they broadcast was censored and as they attempted to continue consolidating truth, they got banned from many popular platforms. Where was I, oh, if no resources are listed, are people going to take the time to find resources to either verify or refute the information? Many don't.

Media and Social platforms demonized attempts to build a wall along America's southern border. This demonization of (attack against) anyone who supported the building of that wall continued for what, ever? Yet, recently President Biden said the building of the wall must continue. A complete 180 degree about face and who's getting demonized by social media platforms and many media outlets? Not the President. In time, news media will figure out a way to spin a new narrative FULLY supporting the building of the wall and deporting illegal immigrants.

I live in NY, for years we've listened to democratic leaders within this state PRAISE open borders. They claimed NYC is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Now they are reaping the consequences and over the past several months have begun doing their 180s and have begun denouncing open borders along our southern border. Many I do view for "truth" have complied news video of NY leadership praising President Biden and then compare this praising to the present where the same leadership (while not yet demonizing him) are beginning to question and even oppose President Biden's open border policy. And NOW, he's turned 180 and says to build the wall. So, I will wait to see how NY leadership begin to praise President Biden, again.

I have no doubt that "if" jihad is executed against NYC, NY state leadership will quickly do a 180 degree on their anti-gun agenda and figure out a way to put rifles INTO the hands of citizens before they will allow any city to be overtaken by terrorism. Oh, and I have no doubt they will do a 180 on the state level background check for purchasing of ammo. Presently, this is NYS' latest means to infringe against the 2nd Amendment. Right now, if I needed a fresh box of .22cal to hunt small game, based on speaking with the hunting shop I frequent, I may have to wait 2-3 weeks for approval and now, the chance I get denied approval, is possible.

It's all a show, akin to a circus made up of ugly clowns.

So yeah, in the premise of this topic, the media will misrepresent a lot.
I better stop now, or I will go on and on.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I guess it seems to me that people are attached to this idea of the persecuted visionary to the point that being persecuted gets conflated with being a visionary. It is such a powerful story, and it is even sometimes a true story. I wonder though, If you dropped that idea completely when evaluating the truth of ideas and the character of people would you lose anything of value at all. I get the impression that you don’t want to leave me with the impression that all you do is look for the most reviled and controversial person and then uncritically absorb their entire oeuvre…you critically review the facts, perhaps do additional research, maybe work through the equations yourself and then determine if you find the preponderance of all these things to be compelling or convincing or whatever right? So why not just do that without the added steps of allowing yourself to be influenced with things that are both irrelevant to the presented facts and a well known vector for manipulation?

While I read your entire post, your conclusion here is where I'd like to relay points. Personally, for me, I don't look for the most controversial fact gatherer and due to a level of attack against them, are they thus worthy of being listened to. One must discern "why" are they being attacked. Is it because they (on one extreme) spin "their" agenda and at the end of the day, the attack is against their agenda and thus, the narrative they spin in favor of their agenda is where attacks are focused? If so, I will not pursue such a show/channel or whatever means of broadcast they utilize. On another extreme, is what they put out factual, no agenda, no opinion, just facts and even better, as part of their fact filled editorial are all the resources listed so one can verify or refute what information they put out? I tend to utilize such "news" gatherers as a place to frequent. And yes, many I've frequented are limited to "free speech" platforms due to the "truth" they broadcast was censored and as they attempted to continue consolidating truth, they got banned from many popular platforms. Where was I, oh, if no resources are listed, are people going to take the time to find resources to either verify or refute the information? Many don't.

Media and Social platforms demonized attempts to build a wall along America's southern border. This demonization of (attack against) anyone who supported the building of that wall continued for what, ever? Yet, recently President Biden said the building of the wall must continue. A complete 180 degree about face and who's getting demonized by social media platforms and many media outlets? Not the President. In time, news media will figure out a way to spin a new narrative FULLY supporting the building of the wall and deporting illegal immigrants.

I live in NY, for years we've listened to democratic leaders within this state PRAISE open borders. They claimed NYC is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Now they are reaping the consequences and over the past several months have begun doing their 180s and have begun denouncing open borders along our southern border. Many I do view for "truth" have complied news video of NY leadership praising President Biden and then compare this praising to the present where the same leadership (while not yet demonizing him) are beginning to question and even oppose President Biden's open border policy. And NOW, he's turned 180 and says to build the wall. So, I will wait to see how NY leadership begin to praise President Biden, again.

I have no doubt that "if" jihad is executed against NYC, NY state leadership will quickly do a 180 degree on their anti-gun agenda and figure out a way to put rifles INTO the hands of citizens before they will allow any city to be overtaken by terrorism. Oh, and I have no doubt they will do a 180 on the state level background check for purchasing of ammo. Presently, this is NYS' latest means to infringe against the 2nd Amendment. Right now, if I needed a fresh box of .22cal to hunt small game, based on speaking with the hunting shop I frequent, I may have to wait 2-3 weeks for approval and now, the chance I get denied approval, is possible.

It's all a show, akin to a circus made up of ugly clowns.

So yeah, in the premise of this topic, the media will misrepresent a lot.
I better stop now, or I will go on and on.

This is a much better answer than your first one imo, more detail and nuance. In fairness to you I had assumed that you meant something more like this than what you initially said, but responding to what I thought you probably meant bares mixed results. I still think that you are crediting the "first they laugh at you" heuristic with more analytical potential than I would, but to each their own I suppose. If you're still on board for talking though, i'd like to know a bit more about why you believe that this is critical to your process? IOW were you to drop it from your toolchain do you think you would be worse at distinguishing truth from fiction? Do you see any potential pitfalls to the process you've described and are their any steps that you take in order to avoid them? would you mind sharing one of your favorite "free speech" platform independant fact gatherers and talk a bit about how you determined that this particular individual was a truth sayer that was rejected from the mainstream because they are truthful?