Do you believe "the media"?

[Deleted]

Most of us know media is being controlled by biljonairs, governments, etc, all with their own agenda.

What does this say about the credibility of the news we consume? If history is written by the victors, who is to tell the losers weren't the righteous ones?

So is an "IS soldier' a terrorist? Or someone who makes desperate attempts to defend his country from foreign invading forces who seek oil? We all know writing angry letters wont do them any good. Arent the taliban just freedom fighters? What did Kim Jung Il ever do to anyone that we (the west) never did?

Theres a huge grey area our news chooses to ignore. Why is that?

Do you believe "the media"?

[zenkai]

Hell no I don't. You have to read multiple stories to get the full story because they always want to push a narrative.

[Damajin]

No, Operation Mockingbird still exists in some form.

[kail]

I believe in whatever is not written like a personal blog and has credible sources to back statements. Doesn't matter if it comes from Fox or CNN, the content is what matters. I would trust a Breitbart article if it checks out (yet to see one though).

[Darsithis]

I believe in whatever is not written like a personal blog and has credible sources to back statements. Doesn't matter if it comes from Fox or CNN, the content is what matters. I would trust a Breitbart article if it checks out (yet to see one though).

This.

I believe what can be checked out. If there are sources that include eyewitness quotes, videos, and other official information, I'll take it. If it's just "OMG TRUMP SAID XXX, LIBERALS ARE SO ANGRY" I'm going to pass on it.

[sciarc]

I only believe stuff posted on message boards by random anonymous people. You just can't trust anyone else anymore because of the billionaires.

[Deleted]

This.

I believe what can be checked out. If there are sources that include eyewitness quotes, videos, and other official information, I'll take it. If it's just "OMG TRUMP SAID XXX, LIBERALS ARE SO ANGRY" I'm going to pass on it.

When you have tabacco companies paying Harvard 3 million to do research on the influence of second hand smoking on your health, how much value does "scientific evidence" have? Plenty of researches have turned out to be scams or poorly performed yet taken for true, or later overturned because someone else with another agenda drew another conclusion.

[Darsithis]

When you have tabacco companies paying Harvard 3 million to do research on the influence of second hand smoking on your health, how much value does "scientific evidence" have? Plenty of researches have turned out to be scams or poorly performed yet taken for true, or later overturned because someone else with another agenda drew another conclusion.

By doing what I said.

I don't trust the vast majority of research until it is peer-reviewed. That means I don't jump on the bandwagon that [insert thing here] is [insert good/bad here] for [insert body part/general health] just because the news picks it up, which, for the most part, tends to be erroneously report it anyway, like the infamous "red wine is the same as three hours of exercise" bullshit that went around the web a few years ago. Until multiple studies confirm it take it all with a big grain of salt.

[kritisk]

Yes and no. I am skeptical of most anything I read or see these days even though I trust some sources a bit more than others. I tend to believe things with more supporting evidence and more general exposure than the wild things you see posted on only one or two sites.

I honestly think the "media" thing is overblown because certain politicians can't stand being called out or having their own agenda ignored for questions that might not be flattering to their needs. In the US we have a rich tradition of the media bringing down those in power, and rightly so. It isn't perfect but it isn't this ominous thing that the conspiracy nuts want us to believe.

A major problem is that many people associate all programming or writing in "the media" as equal. This is just ridiculous. Watch Fox or another network on any given evening and you'll see the shows aren't "news" shows. They are entertainment and opinion shows. People who believe these opinions are "media" (in the way that's most often used) are just ignorant. It's the same for talk radio and blogs. People tend to take the opinion pieces as representative of news gathering and publishing. I have no idea why this has taken such a sharp turn in recent years. It's almost like the general public has lost the ability to discern editorializing and news presentation.

TLDR: Stay away from opinions, blogs, and entertainment shows and look for the news gathering organizations and/or stick to the actual news hours on your favorite networks. You'll find far better information that is far more balanced and nuanced than the things that get everyone's panties twisted.

[xChurch]

I believe the media if what they say is verifiable just like with any facts. It may take some digging and research but you can usually piece together the facts of any news story yourself. But if the majority of news outlets come to the same conclusion then odds are you should just believe them otherwise you risk becoming a conspiracy person.

[Blobfish]

Media are very Left wing

[Templar 331]

So is an "IS soldier' a terrorist? Or someone who makes desperate attempts to defend his country from foreign invading forces who seek oil? We all know writing angry letters wont do them any good. Arent the taliban just freedom fighters?

They were until they succeeded in taking back their country and then started to terrorize other countries.

What did Kim Jung Il ever do to anyone that we (the west) never did?

Imprison a criminal and his/her family who had nothing to do with it.

Do you believe "the media"?

No, I believe in facts. I just hope the media gives enough facts that I can make an educated opinion on a subject.

[Dezerte]

I believe in well-sourced media that doesn't engage in sensationalism.

[May90]

I prefer to judge a claim based on the factual support presented, not on who published it. With the exception for a few especially compromised media outlets, as well as government-controlled media from countries with poor press freedom ranking.

[BuckSparkles]

If it is a non-political issue, then they might be okay. If it's a political issue, LOLNOPE.

[the game]

I only listen to the onion.

[Malachi256]

Discernment has and always will be an important ability/skill.

Like others have said, you have to assess every piece of information individually. It's one of the reasons I laugh at people who mock wikipedia or foxnews or whatever. If you trust any source of information implicitly, you are the fool, and likewise if you automatically and completely discount any source of information, you are nearly equally foolish in most cases.

[Flarelaine]

What did Kim Jung Il ever do to anyone that we (the west) never did?

Executed his uncle with a flak cannon?

[Aphrel]

Most of us know media is being controlled by biljonairs, governments, etc, all with their own agenda.

What does this say about the credibility of the news we consume? If history is written by the victors, who is to tell the losers weren't the righteous ones?

So is an "IS soldier' a terrorist? Or someone who makes desperate attempts to defend his country from foreign invading forces who seek oil? We all know writing angry letters wont do them any good. Arent the taliban just freedom fighters? What did Kim Jung Il ever do to anyone that we (the west) never did?

Theres a huge grey area our news chooses to ignore. Why is that?

Do you believe "the media"?

The mass genoncide in indonesia comes to mind.
No US media whould report on it because the US was allied with the opressors and sold weponds to them.

[Vash The Stampede]

Media? Like TV? People watch TV?