Discussion Do you think more people are closer to 'the truth' now via widespread news or, does fake news and propoganda diminish that?

[Forever Sleep]

Maybe because I watch a lot of anti-Trump media, a lot more is recommended to me. It seems like a widespread suspicion though- that the Iran war is both a 'gift' to the oligarths that so heavily sponsored Trump, no doubt some power or money play and also- a distraction away from the Epstein files and- God knows what else. I wonder how many actually believe it is about national security.

Obviously, our opinions on what is likely true are formed by what we consume. While I suppose the most responsible and reasonable thing would be to listen to news reports from both sides- I wonder how many people actually do that. Aren't we more drawn to opinions and perspectives we are more likely to agree with? Plus- Trumps own words truthfully just sicken me a lot of the time. Refering to war as a little 'excursion'.

I feel like years ago though, there was more respect for politicians generally. Was that because they were genuinely more respectful people or- was it because their more sleazy behaviour and dodgy deals weren't so widespread reported?

By witnessing this shit show in real time- are we better informed of the reality of how our leaders behave? Or, is it so falsely represented that maybe we are fed less truth but, more often? I wonder where the truth actually lies. I wonder who consistently reports it.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

By witnessing this shit show in real time- are we better informed of the reality of how our leaders behave?

Complicated. For example, as more real information about the Epstein files gets released, I see weird blood libel-esque conspiracy theories growing in popularity alongside it. It seems we can't have fact nowadays without someone popularizing fiction relating to it. Lord forbid horrible things just... exist.

Two steps forward, one step backwards. At least it's progress. Hopefully.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I see weird blood libel-esque conspiracy theories growing in popularity alongside it.

Like- child cannibalism theories or blood drinking theories? I've seen them about too. There's that whole: 'no smoke without fire' theory but then- that just seems so extreme, I don't know.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Like- child cannibalism theories or blood drinking theories? I've seen them about too. There's that whole: 'no smoke without fire' theory but then- that just seems so extreme, I don't know.

You need to reply to this thread in order to see this content.

 

[FadingSnowFake]

Like- child cannibalism theories or blood drinking theories? I've seen them about too

This is daily news in my ig feeds. And some have known this for years.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Was that because they were genuinely more respectful people or- was it because their more sleazy behaviour and dodgy deals weren't so widespread reported?

I think the main culprit is the dramatization of news reporting. The backside of free media is that they work on a free market, controlled by supply and demand. Engagement is more important than information.

As consumers we can choose to not engage with the drama, and just extract the facts.
Usually, the underlying data is universally agreed on. When it's not, we can choose to accept uncertainty.

I think it's important to not let the news flow devolve to a drama show.
Trumps most recent announcement where he pulled another clumsy rhetoric trick for unclear reasons, is completely irrelevant. There's nothing to gain from repeating it over and over, analyzing details, when there's not enough information to conclude anything new.

 

[owo]

also- a distraction away from the Epstein files

dont think so

economical purposes more real i guess

to distract people they could use crisis actors and stage something

 

[Hvergelmir]

to distract people they could use crisis actors and stage something

Sounds like a reckless strategy. Do you know of a single confirmed case where those have been used?

 

[owo]

Sounds like a reckless strategy. Do you know of a single confirmed case where those have been used?

what kind of "confirmation" are you looking for?

officials? ofc they will deny it. hoax/fake news/russian bot farms/right wing extremist propaganda/you name it

"independent" medias? they are backed (even if they calls themselves "independent", "non-profit" "transparent")

 

[Hvergelmir]

what kind of "confirmation" are you looking for?

Ideally official documents, historical or contemporary.
Official statements would be the next best thing.
Claims from independents are less interesting, but could be valuable if they've made a thorough investigation.

I've not heard those terms outside right-wing conspiracy-minded circles, so I was simply curious both whether there was some truth to it, and if parts of the wider political spectrum share similar ideas.
I acknowledge that that kind of manipulation could happen, but I'm not convinced that the tactic is in active use by anyone, which is why I looked for examples.