How do you know what media/sources to trust?

[JamesHackerMP]

On 5/6/2018 at 5:41 AM, Altai said:

I dont think it matters whether or not they were intended to harm  you. What matters is whether or not they harm you. If you remember, there was another topic about a woman stops on the highway to help someones and causes another crash that kills some other people. Maybe she was not trying to harm people but still she did it and sentenced. The same thing goes for fake news too. You will be engraved in minds with something you never did. You will lose your job,  people wont like you, you will have socializing problems, maybe someones will try to kill you, you will be an unhappy person. All of them because of a media agency prepares an "unintended" fake news. Sorry this should not be allowed.

How would you go about stopping fake news? Who would have the power to decide whether it's fake or not?

[GostHacked]

On 5/6/2018 at 4:03 PM, Michael Hardner said:

What does it even mean though ?  Should I believe the media when they show a video of him spouting incomprehensible pomposity ?  Somebody tell me when to panic.

You should have started panicking under Bush Jr.  Or maybe Bush Sr with the first invasion of Iraq.  Now Trump wants to get into Iran. The pulling out of the deal was to help facilitate the war machine to bomb Iran. 

Wesley Clark was right ..   Mind you the time frame has been a little more than five years. And the order has been changed, but the overall notion is the same.

 

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) You should have started panicking under Bush Jr.  Or maybe Bush Sr with the first invasion of Iraq. 

2) Now Trump wants to get into Iran. The pulling out of the deal was to help facilitate the war machine to bomb Iran. 

 

 

1) I didn't panic then either.  There wasn't anything that was surprising to me, except perhaps that the WMD question came up so plainly to be a misdirection.

2) WAIT - I thought the anti-Hillary crowd said that she was the 'warmonger' and that Trump was going to make peace with everyone ?

 

[GostHacked]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I didn't panic then either.  There wasn't anything that was surprising to me, except perhaps that the WMD question came up so plainly to be a misdirection.

2) WAIT - I thought the anti-Hillary crowd said that she was the 'warmonger' and that Trump was going to make peace with everyone ?

 

The WMD should have made people panic.  Outright lies got nations to war with another nation. That has has some very very serious impact. Those lies were close to 20 years ago, and see what has happened since then? There are dots one needs to connect. One also needs to pay attention long term. People so easily forget.  I can lie that I did not drink from the water jug in the fridge, but that is not going to waste hundreds of thousands of lives while wasting billions or dollars.  ON a personal level an example would be that you believed a lie that was told to you by someone other than your wife, that she cheated on you  and you end up divorcing her because of it. A terrible result for something that was not true and would have some serious impact, especially if kids were involved.

Normally the reaction of lies that got nations into war woudl make people go 'HOLY SHIT LET' STOP THIS'.  but it's met with more of 'meh'.  An apathetic populous constantly distracted by other things that they think are important (sports, movies, celebrity gossip ect ect ... ) facilitates a war mongering military that controls the government into bombing other nations. Not only that, the media paints anyone who goes against war as unpatriotic.

For #2,, wow you actually believed that?  As I keep saying, it's never the POTUS that calls these shots. He is told what to do. War would have happened under Clinton OR Trump.  Because since Bush Sr, there have been reps and dems in the White House and every single one of them started and continued previous wars. Don't forget Obama started the mess in Syria and also was involved in Libya.   Bush Jr got the US into Afghanistan and BACK into Iraq. 

Now we have to figure out what lies are being thrown upon us in regards to Iran. Trust me, there will be lies.

 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) The WMD should have made people panic.  Outright lies got nations to war with another nation. That has has some very very serious impact. Those lies were close to 20 years ago, and see what has happened since then?  

2) Normally the reaction of lies that got nations into war woudl make people go 'HOLY SHIT LET' STOP THIS'.  but it's met with more of 'meh'.  An apathetic populous constantly distracted by other things that they think are important (sports, movies, celebrity gossip ect ect ... ) facilitates a war mongering military that controls the government into bombing other nations. 

3) For #2,, wow you actually believed that?   

4)  Trust me, there will be lies.

 

1) People saw Iraq as an enemy already.  I don't mean to 'meh' this but your argument is with human nature, specifically tribal nature.

2) 'Normally ?'.  I don't know about that but I wish it were true.  The 'other things' are part of the picture, and with a non-conscripted army we can feast while we pay to send poor people to fight.

3) No.

4) I trust you.

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) People saw Iraq as an enemy already.  I don't mean to 'meh' this but your argument is with human nature, specifically tribal nature.

2) 'Normally ?'.  I don't know about that but I wish it were true.  The 'other things' are part of the picture, and with a non-conscripted army we can feast while we pay to send poor people to fight.

3) No.

4) I trust you.

I never think in the tribal sense.  And it's conditioning, not really human nature. We are conditioned to simply not give a fuck.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I never think in the tribal sense.  And it's conditioning, not really human nature. We are conditioned to simply not give a fuck.

I don't know that that is true.  We learn whom and what to trust for sure, as in media.  We also are conditioned to behave according to norms but we're born with the need to behave according to certain norms.

Media is an extension of man.

[Argus]

I'm not sure the problem is just fake news so much as it is slanted news. I was thinking this this morning as I skimmed through the news shows and watched a bit of FOX news. The problems in America, it seems to me, derive from the fact that different elements of its population are getting entirely different news. It's not necessarily fake, but it's slanted and incomplete.

As an example. Suppose one network covers refugees/migrants in a way which is full of treacly stories of grateful happy people settling in, adjusting, eager to learn more and get to work. All of these stories are true. And they're repeated, just with different groups, all of them positive, all of them sending the message that it's good to help refugees and refugees make fine new citizens.

Then you have a second network. It's coverage of refugees/migrants is entirely different. Instead it focuses on people committing crimes, especially violent crimes. It shows refugees in welfare homes and talks about how much it costs, and interviews poor Canadians who were on the list for a public housing home but got shoved down the list in order to accommodate the newcomers. It shows ungrateful refugees, and refugees with antisocial views of women, gays and Jews. All these stories are true, and it shows them repeatedly, all with the message that refugees are dangerous and expensive and ungrateful.

What are the viewers of those two different networks going to think of refugees? What are they going to think of each others opinions?

Ideally of course, we would have news that showed both these things in equal proportion to their news value and reality. But that's not what we get. Think of the MSNBC as the first network (or in Canada any network) and FOX as the second. You get a divided country where one side is baffled at the attitude of the other because they're getting entirety different news. Even while the news presented is not technically fake or false.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Yes Argus, this is the epistemic crisis I have posted about.  My idea is to step back and agree on principles as an objective foundation.

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

What are the viewers of those two different networks going to think of refugees? What are they going to think of each others opinions?

We see what happens here on these forums, obviously.

But even if the same news source posts "treacly" stuff about refugees and also posts about refugees who aren't working, are ungrateful, who engage in crimes?  The people choose which stories they "like" better.  So if on Tuesday, Global posts about a refugee who groped girls in a swimming pool and on Wednesday covered a family who set up a small business and are doing well, those who dislike immigrants/Muslims will seize on the groping refugee as representative of all Muslims and the other family as an aberration, and of course vice-versa for the people who are ok with immigration/Muslims.

I think this is part of "confirmation bias" and maybe has less to do with the news than with the people watching.

 

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We see what happens here on these forums, obviously.

But even if the same news source posts "treacly" stuff about refugees and also posts about refugees who aren't working, are ungrateful, who engage in crimes?  The people choose which stories they "like" better. 

Yes, perhaps, but at least they'll be presented with both sides of the argument. And in all likeliihood most of them will realize that there are good and bad aspects to admitting refugees/migrants. That it's not all one thing or the other, which will temper their views somewhat.

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes Argus, this is the epistemic crisis I have posted about.  My idea is to step back and agree on principles as an objective foundation.

I'm not sure what principle we can find other than being true. Being fair? There used to be a law in the US which demanded political coverage by the news give equal time to both sides. I'm not sure how we could do that with subjects.

The coverage of the migrant 'crisis' in the US is a case in point. The media is filled with shrill stories about 'families being torn apart' and has all but stated this is a deliberate policy,  that Trump wants to 'separate' families.  You have people in media comparing it to Hitler and the Holocaust, and talking about children being detained, incarcerated and caged. There are crowds outside detention facilities demanding they 'let the children go!" (go where? Their parents are in custody) This is all highly emotional language which is having a big impact on the mindset of the viewers.

In reality, all that is happening is a sudden change in policy to prosecute those who enter the US illegally. A byproduct of this is that those who do so with children wind up having the children temporarily taken into state care, just as happens to every other child whose parents are arrested across the US. This is compounded by things being somewhat disorganized since the policy change was sudden and the agency involved didn't have time to prepare.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yes, perhaps, but at least they'll be presented with both sides of the argument. And in all likeliihood most of them will realize that there are good and bad aspects to admitting refugees/migrants. That it's not all one thing or the other, which will temper their views somewhat.

Well I must say that both sides are available to everyone, merely at the press of a button, and several mainstream news outlets present stories on both sides ... Still, people are entrenched, so I don't think this is a ?media" problem so much as a human problem.  Not that media is blameless or without influence, but people have to actually want both sides of the story, first and foremost.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well I must say that both sides are available to everyone, merely at the press of a button, and several mainstream news outlets present stories on both sides ... Still, people are entrenched, so I don't think this is a ?media" problem so much as a human problem.  Not that media is blameless or without influence, but people have to actually want both sides of the story, first and foremost.

In the US you have both sides presented, though only if you can stomach FOX . But FOX isn't really a news show. It's an entertainment show pretending to be a news show.  I'd watch a network show that fairly presented news from a conservative viewpoint but I can't stand watching much of FOX. I think MSNBC is fairer, though it depends on which show you watch.

And as for Canada. You really don't have any options. You will not find any major media organization presenting unflattering portrayals of refugees or migrants (or immigrants), or investigating the costs, or the negative impact on poor Canadians, or showing refugees/migrants/immigrants with antisocial views of women, gays or Jews. It just won't happen. That is not the message they want to send out. They see it as their social duty to only depict good things about newcomers, wherever possible.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Argus

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes Argus, this is the epistemic crisis I have posted about.  My idea is to step back and agree on principles as an objective foundation.

It won't happen, I've been mentioning Planet Babel for years in my posts...people don't seem to want to get it.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It won't happen, I've been mentioning Planet Babel for years in my posts...people don't seem to want to get it.

These things go in cycles.  Once there is a will there will be a way.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm not sure what principle we can find other than being true. 

Being true... Well truth is subjective.  Numbers and rules tend not to be.

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

And as for Canada. You really don't have any options. You will not find any major media organization presenting unflattering portrayals of refugees or migrants (or immigrants), or investigating the costs, or the negative impact on poor Canadians, or showing refugees/migrants/immigrants with antisocial views of women, gays or Jews. It just won't happen. That is not the message they want to send out. They see it as their social duty to only depict good things about newcomers, wherever possible.

And yet, I have seen those things on CBC, on panels where "both viewpoints" are presented.   It may not be as prevalent (monthly, weekly, daily, hourly?) as some would like, but it seems that the word about how awful (some Muslim) immigrants are, the word certainly seems to be getting around anyway.    It seems to me that even if the claim that the mainstream media only focuses on the positive were true, it's absolutely necessary given the plethora of sites presenting the "other side", accurately or not.

Edited June 24, 2018 by dialamah

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

These things go in cycles.  Once there is a will there will be a way.

The will was there once I think, briefly.  Everything hinges on sustainability and experiments involving rats and cages don't bode well.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And yet, I have seen those things on CBC, on panels where "both viewpoints" are presented.   It may not be as prevalent (monthly, weekly, daily, hourly?) as some would like, but it seems that the word about how awful (some Muslim) immigrants are, the word certainly seems to be getting around anyway.    It seems to me that even if the claim that the mainstream media only focuses on the positive were true, it's absolutely necessary given the plethora of sites presenting the "other side", accurately or not.

I'm talking about news, not discussion shows. And yes, word does get out as real people see things and take note even if the media does not. An example would be my mentioning previously about all the shootings and murders in Ottawa which seem to involve people with Arabic names and faces, or Arabic names and Black faces (somali). You think I'm the only one noticing that? You think I'm the only one in Ottawa who knows that when the media talks about a 'swarming' at South Keys involving "Youths" they really mean "Somali youths"? And of course, I used to live next to a public housing project so hearing about the wild success of seemingly every newcomer never played well for me.

As for the 'plethora' of sites. Again, I'm not talking about the internet, or taming the internet. I'm talking about mainstream news and its unwillingness to present fair, unbiased, even-handed reporting which presents good and bad. Because it is that unwillingness which opens the door for these 'plethora' of sites to deliver what they call the 'real' news.

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Being true... Well truth is subjective.  Numbers and rules tend not to be.

Truth is NOT subjective. Accurate reporting would present all sides of a situation so viewers were well-informed. Then it would be up to them to make a decision based on that information. Most things are shades of gray, not all white or black. But simplistic media prefer a simple message, all white or all black. That leads people to doubt their integrity. 

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm talking about news, not discussion shows. And yes, word does get out as real people see things and take note even if the media does not.

Locally, in the mainstream media, I've seen *news* reports on both the good/bad refugees/immigrants.  Not many on either side, I have to admit.

You are convinced that refugees/(some) immigrants offer nothing to Canada but financial disaster and high crime.  You aren't finding mainstream news stories that support your view, so then you simply assume that they must be hiding it.  That makes no sense to me.   Perhaps what you believe isn't true, or at least isn't the disaster you assume, hmmm?  

BTW, the local Ikea has a started a program to target the hiring of refugees to help them settle and assimilate into Canada; even if their English is poor, they'll find a spot for them.  They're touting it as a commitment to diversity, but I bet the reasons are more economic than ideological.  I suspect they can't find enough (non-refugee) people willing to work at the wages they're willing to pay - so they are tapping into this resource.   The lower-paying industries really do need the immigrants you are so dead set against, because we don't have enough (real Canadian) people even now to fill all the low-skill and low-paying jobs that are out there.  We often don't even have enough people to fill the high-skill/high paying jobs available.   Just try reading a few news stories about server, retail and now trucking jobs that are going begging for lack of staff.

Quote

An example would be my mentioning previously about all the shootings and murders in Ottawa which seem to involve people with Arabic names and faces, or Arabic names and Black faces (somali).

So maybe that's true where you live.  Where I live, the names/faces are different: predominantly South Asian and Caucasian.  And,  based on the studies which contain facts and which I've cited previously, these criminals are most likely from at least second and probably third generation immigrants.  They are Canadian; they just don't happen to be White Canadians.

Quote

You think I'm the only one noticing that? You think I'm the only one in Ottawa who knows that when the media talks about a 'swarming' at South Keys involving "Youths" they really mean "Somali youths"?

Unlike you, I don't make assumptions about the ethnic background of criminals mentioned in the media, if the story doesn't specify and no names are mentioned.  If you *assume* you know who they are talking about, you are merely feeding your bias.  Your assumptions (no matter how often you make them, or how many people agree) are not facts.  

Quote

And of course, I used to live next to a public housing project so hearing about the wild success of seemingly every newcomer never played well for me.

I work with and live next to quite a few immigrants, so hearing about the wild failure of seemingly every newcomer does not play well for me.  

Quote

I'm talking about mainstream news and its unwillingness to present fair, unbiased, even-handed reporting which presents good and bad. Because it is that unwillingness which opens the door for these 'plethora' of sites to deliver what they call the 'real' news.

It sounds to me as if the mainstream news does not report on what you *assume* is true, therefore you *assume* they are hiding the true facts.

Given that we have literally millions of immigrants in this country and only a small proportion of all of them end up on the news for criminal behavior, and that the vast majority of people who live here actually do have jobs, I think the problem is what you believe about them, and not what is true about them.

 

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You are convinced that refugees/(some) immigrants offer nothing to Canada but financial disaster and high crime.  You aren't finding mainstream news stories that support your view, so then you simply assume that they must be hiding it.  That makes no sense to me.   Perhaps what you believe isn't true, or at least isn't the disaster you assume, hmmm?  

I'm not finding any mainstream news that denies it. Treacly stories about Syrians happy in their new homes doesn't tell me they'll be productively employed citizens any time soon. And I went to the trouble of doing an information request to get a report on the economic success of immigrants which showed that immigrants from a number of areas of the world have extremely low incomes as groups. Since I'm aware of how our progressive income tax system works I'm also aware these people are costing us a lot of money since, as a group, they not only pay no tax but need more government services and assistance than most. Likewise since I'm aware its hard to improve your lot in life without an education and with poor language skills, I doubt that will change.

Quote

BTW, the local Ikea has a started a program to target the hiring of refugees to help them settle and assimilate into Canada; even if their English is poor, they'll find a spot for them.  They're touting it as a commitment to diversity, but I bet the reasons are more economic than ideological.  I suspect they can't find enough (non-refugee) people willing to work at the wages they're willing to pay -

Yes. This is an ongoing problem for poor Canadians. Places that refuse to raise wages and instead use the ongoing stream of newcomers to pay cut rate salaries. If you think this is good news to me, you're mistaken. I would rather see Ikea increase its wages in order to attract those employees it needs. I was once a security guard, and when our union was in a dispute with the company, the company locked us all out, and brought in a lot of immigrants/refugees willing to work crappy jobs for minimum wages. That's how that works.

Quote

The lower-paying industries really do need the immigrants you are so dead set against, because we don't have enough (real Canadian) people even now to fill all the low-skill and low-paying jobs that are out there.  We often don't even have enough people to fill the high-skill/high paying jobs available.   Just try reading a few news stories about server, retail and now trucking jobs that are going begging for lack of staff.

That's crap. There were several reports in the last year or so, one from the parliamentary budget office, all agreeing there was not only no shortage of workers but none was foreseeable.

But I don't want this to turn into a pro/anti immigrant thread.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

 

But I don't want this to turn into a pro/anti immigrant thread.

 

Ok. 

[Hal 9000]

The first thing is to be able to separate the news shows from the opinion shows.  Unfortunately, prime time is all a game between CNN (Lemon/Cooper) Vs MSNBC (Maddow, Lawrence ?and Matthews - and the other Chris guy) Vs. Fox (Hannity, Carlson, and Laura).  Get rid of all these people and get back to news.