Residents of Oakdale, Calif., have abandoned traditional media outlets for a mishmash of online sources. These days, they’re often not sure what information to trust.
Media literacy means having a sense of which outlets lie about which issues and why. eg: the Wall Street Journal editorials and op-eds are used as a means of introducing lies for commercial advantage, and New York Times politics writers put out puff pieces to maintain access to wealth and power.
Fair enough. Also knowing the general bias of a given outlet. I’m pretty much never going to trust anything from the NYT that coincides with the US state Dept narrative, and I feel similarly about the BBC and the British ministry.
I wouldn’t go where you are; I can think of several examples of the NYT and US State Department agreeing about Ukraine in ways that turned out to be very right. It’s more important to look at what evidence is brought to bear to support a conclusion, and whether the conclusion is valid based on the evidence, and to look at more than one outlet to understand an issue, so it’s not easy to use paltering to mislead.
Many of the traditional media outlets have always been pushing agendas too. You just may not have been aware of them. I don’t mean to equate them with patriot Joe’s bootlicker blog, exactly, but I also am no longer fooled by a facade of gravitas.
Of course I am absolutely against anything promoting fascism. I also think it is very important to analyze how we got to where we are. Part of the fault lies with our traditional media failing to do its job. I think it’s a mistake to place your hope in the people who led us down this path to save us from the consequences.
The problem is that the “main stream media” is also shitty and they lie all the time too.
Media literacy means having a sense of which outlets lie about which issues and why. eg: the Wall Street Journal editorials and op-eds are used as a means of introducing lies for commercial advantage, and New York Times politics writers put out puff pieces to maintain access to wealth and power.
Fair enough. Also knowing the general bias of a given outlet. I’m pretty much never going to trust anything from the NYT that coincides with the US state Dept narrative, and I feel similarly about the BBC and the British ministry.
I wouldn’t go where you are; I can think of several examples of the NYT and US State Department agreeing about Ukraine in ways that turned out to be very right. It’s more important to look at what evidence is brought to bear to support a conclusion, and whether the conclusion is valid based on the evidence, and to look at more than one outlet to understand an issue, so it’s not easy to use paltering to mislead.
deleted by creator
Many of the traditional media outlets have always been pushing agendas too. You just may not have been aware of them. I don’t mean to equate them with patriot Joe’s bootlicker blog, exactly, but I also am no longer fooled by a facade of gravitas.
they are all owned by conservatives thats why theres a agenda push, if you look up who owns these MSMs.
deleted by creator
Of course I am absolutely against anything promoting fascism. I also think it is very important to analyze how we got to where we are. Part of the fault lies with our traditional media failing to do its job. I think it’s a mistake to place your hope in the people who led us down this path to save us from the consequences.
They also chase clicks these days too