It would be better I had a more sophisticated one.
I like to get the opinion of Marxists like Slavoj Zizek and I am interested in the things Douglas Rushkoff says.
But usually I have certain figures/outlets to get the news from or in-depth analyses.
I came to the conclusion that follow the money is one of the most important advices when following the news.
And all the pundits and alleged experts only want one thing: money. And maybe attention. Because why are we posting on SaSu? I think getting paid for posting on here is difficult. Are we searching for the truth or rather for distraction? The intentions probably vary. Pundits also try to increase their reach and strengthen their brand.
I think I am pretty critical of billionaires at the same time I am not fully against capitalism. Show me an alternative system that works properly.
A framework helps me reduce noise, it is a filter of blending and smoke bombs. The goal is to reduce bias blind spots and gives criteria for judging a story.
Some questions are: Who benefits from the story? Who is speaking and why? Is there a conflict of interest? Staying open minded towards new information. What is the framing and consider agenda-setting. Check the sources. And differetiate between them. Does the story fit into a certain narrative? Is the sole goal of the story to further a narrative? And are the feedback loops, unintended consequences and downstream effects that follow the story. Which language was used? Were the facts chosen selectively and are certain parts faded out?
Which biases could you have when following the news? I think most of us are susceptible for the confirmation bias.
I am not sure whether I am good at reducing the noise. It is hard to follow the full spectrum from German and US politics. And when there something big happening in Russia, China, Japan, France, UK I also want to follow that. There are some outlets I don't follow anymore because they spread too much propaganda. But that leads to blind spots for sure.
I watched media lectures. And I try to read scientific journals but sometimes for example on Israel-Palestine they have the same agenda than German media outlets. And make no difference.
I wish I was a savvy student of the Franfurt school. Maybe I should decrease my time spending on the news and read more political theory. But in college media analyses and international relations interested me more. I have the feeling there is so much propaganda in most outlets that it might be a waste of time. You can never be sure whether that what's delivered is really actually the truth or just a spin. Like the Maduro abduction. How detailed the meda covered it sounded suspicious. So where did they get these details from? Government employees? Were they part of the operation? If yes, then there is a massive conflict of interest. And the fact the NYT and Washington Post did not report about this planned violation of international law made them complicit. If they reported about it prior to the operation, the lost their access to new stories. And then there is the fine line between being over paranoid and being skeptical of new information.
I like to get the opinion of Marxists like Slavoj Zizek and I am interested in the things Douglas Rushkoff says.
But usually I have certain figures/outlets to get the news from or in-depth analyses.
I came to the conclusion that follow the money is one of the most important advices when following the news.
And all the pundits and alleged experts only want one thing: money. And maybe attention. Because why are we posting on SaSu? I think getting paid for posting on here is difficult. Are we searching for the truth or rather for distraction? The intentions probably vary. Pundits also try to increase their reach and strengthen their brand.
I think I am pretty critical of billionaires at the same time I am not fully against capitalism. Show me an alternative system that works properly.
A framework helps me reduce noise, it is a filter of blending and smoke bombs. The goal is to reduce bias blind spots and gives criteria for judging a story.
Some questions are: Who benefits from the story? Who is speaking and why? Is there a conflict of interest? Staying open minded towards new information. What is the framing and consider agenda-setting. Check the sources. And differetiate between them. Does the story fit into a certain narrative? Is the sole goal of the story to further a narrative? And are the feedback loops, unintended consequences and downstream effects that follow the story. Which language was used? Were the facts chosen selectively and are certain parts faded out?
Which biases could you have when following the news? I think most of us are susceptible for the confirmation bias.
I am not sure whether I am good at reducing the noise. It is hard to follow the full spectrum from German and US politics. And when there something big happening in Russia, China, Japan, France, UK I also want to follow that. There are some outlets I don't follow anymore because they spread too much propaganda. But that leads to blind spots for sure.
I watched media lectures. And I try to read scientific journals but sometimes for example on Israel-Palestine they have the same agenda than German media outlets. And make no difference.
I wish I was a savvy student of the Franfurt school. Maybe I should decrease my time spending on the news and read more political theory. But in college media analyses and international relations interested me more. I have the feeling there is so much propaganda in most outlets that it might be a waste of time. You can never be sure whether that what's delivered is really actually the truth or just a spin. Like the Maduro abduction. How detailed the meda covered it sounded suspicious. So where did they get these details from? Government employees? Were they part of the operation? If yes, then there is a massive conflict of interest. And the fact the NYT and Washington Post did not report about this planned violation of international law made them complicit. If they reported about it prior to the operation, the lost their access to new stories. And then there is the fine line between being over paranoid and being skeptical of new information.
Last edited:
