Why are people so quick to take information from spurious non credible sources

Bloody hell the BBC takes some hammer from all sides. To quote Joni Mitchell .............. 🎵 "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till its gone................"🎶
 
zorro_mfc said:
This is my point there’s more to journalism than murdochs empire.

But journalism isn’t dead and is still a valid skill.
Click to expand...
Indeed but most people would probably say the Times is one of the more “credible sources”. But as finny says, who decides?
 
chickenrunner said:
Bloody hell the BBC takes some hammer from all sides. To quote Joni Mitchell .............. 🎵 "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till its gone................"🎶
Click to expand...

BBC documentaries, drama, science and arts are pretty darn good. Its news is dire. Just parrots the establishment and royalist line. Challenges nobody in power beyond the perfunctory. C4 has real news journalism.
 
Soutra said:
Too many people are zebras. They don't want their beliefs undermined.

Zebra stands for Zero Evidence but Really Adamant. Zebras are people who see things in black and white. They are sure of their own opinions and they disdain information or science which undermines their beliefs. The king of the Zebras is Donald Trump.

Tom Nichols is the author of the 2017 book, The Death of Expertise. In it he writes that ignorance is now seen as a virtue. ‘To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for people to demonstrate independence from nefarious elites and to insulate their fragile egos from ever being told that they are wrong.’
Click to expand...
Never heard that term before, I like it
 
ThePrisoner said:
.......................Its news is dire. Just parrots the establishment and royalist line. Challenges nobody in power beyond the perfunctory.........................
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's just reporting the news, i.e. what's happening, and leaving the viewer to decide. An awful lot of what pass for straight news reports are in reality opinion/analysis pieces by puffed up journalists who are indulging their own bias/agenda. When reading/listening to this stuff it's always worth remembering their views carry no more weight than your own, especially important when their views agree with your own if you are to stand any chance of avoiding 'confirmation bias'.
To be honest when reading stuff on here as soon as I see people using the phrase 'main stream media' I switch off because I know they've 'taken information from spurious non credible sources' whose principle, blatant, purpose is to suppress facts and the truth. MSM has been the favourite phrase of Trump throughout his presidency, need I say anymore.
 
Id say the BBC does report decent truthful percentage of news that happens on the street, it is politically corrupt though imho.
We've ended up as a one party nation that they continue to serve with gusto. Miliband was ridiculed, Corbyn followed him with the BBC leading the charge. Foot and Kinnock had the same disadvantage fighting against the charge orchestrated and led by the bought and owned press, at the front of it all was the BBC.

They also helped and spread the lies the Sun spewed out, not forgetting the way they portrayed Orgreave.
They now finance local politics journalism at regional newspapers one of the last local journalist sponsored through the BBC left to join a local Tory MP ...no bias there then.
I once had a little respect for the BBC, not anymore , plus they stayed silent about Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall.
Good journalism? There's no such thing, they are all bought and paid for and know how to appeal to your version. These nutso sites don't differ much tbh imho.

Over the years I have come to dislike the BBC, I cant be bought by very poor entertainment, a few lefty token comedians and BBC Radio 6, music radio is a dead loss in the main now. anyway.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree with the comments on here that rightly state the MSM is as corrupt as the dodgy news sites such as breitbart or qanon... clearly they're not as off-the-scale nuts as them but their covert bias and disingenuity make them worse in my eyes.

As a typical example, look what MSNBC did to Andrew Yang.... The Hill
 
ticker_tape said:
.................These nutso sites don't differ imho.....................
Click to expand...
smogontherhine said:
.............. MSM is as corrupt as the dodgy news sites such as breitbart or qanon.............
Click to expand...
And there you have it. Infowars, Breitbart et al have achieved their aim, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

The final comment in the Hill piece you posted is interesting. The suggestion is that 'major news outlets' jockeyed Biden into position as the presidential candidate in their desperation to see Trump ousted, probably very true. However The Hill's finest, wet behind the ears, cub reporters then state that this has been shown to be misguided as Biden only achieved a narrow(??) victory over Trump. Might I suggest that given America's deeply entrenched conservatism a more 'left wing' candidate would have been soundly beaten.
Sometimes, indeed often, we have to set aside idealism and fall back on pragmatism. A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step, getting shot of Trump can be that step.
 
chickenrunner said:
And there you have it. Infowars, Breitbart et al have achieved their aim, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

The final comment in the Hill piece you posted is interesting. The suggestion is that 'major news outlets' jockeyed Biden into position as the presidential candidate in their desperation to see Trump ousted, probably very true. However The Hill's finest, wet behind the ears, cub reporters then state that this has been shown to be misguided as Biden only achieved a narrow(??) victory over Trump. Might I suggest that given America's deeply entrenched conservatism a more 'left wing' candidate would have been soundly beaten.
Sometimes, indeed often, we have to set aside idealism and fall back on pragmatism. A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step, getting shot of Trump can be that step.
Click to expand...
Ive thought the BBC politically owned by the establishment a lot longer than Breitbart have been around.
 
You're right TT, Breitbart want to see the establishment smashed but I think they want to take things in a direction, apologies for my presumption here, that you may not entirely agree with. (y)
 
chickenrunner said:
Sometimes, indeed often, we have to set aside idealism and fall back on pragmatism. A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step, getting shot of Trump can be that step.
Click to expand...
100% Next step get shot of Johnson?

This what the right wing have embraced, so they will tolerate and indeed encourage beliefs from the far right in order that they stay in power. In our own dear Labour Party stupid ultra lefties and just-as-bad centrists will vie to oust the other factions rather than try to concentrate on making peoples lives better with a more caring society. Makes you want to cry.
 
People really find it hard to swallow that the news service they believe to be impartial and honest British blah blah all their working life is now and never has been any different to the nutso channel, the BBC covers crashes etc good though.

We all serve somebody.
 
chickenrunner said:
And there you have it. Infowars, Breitbart et al have achieved their aim, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

The final comment in the Hill piece you posted is interesting. The suggestion is that 'major news outlets' jockeyed Biden into position as the presidential candidate in their desperation to see Trump ousted, probably very true. However The Hill's finest, wet behind the ears, cub reporters then state that this has been shown to be misguided as Biden only achieved a narrow(??) victory over Trump. Might I suggest that given America's deeply entrenched conservatism a more 'left wing' candidate would have been soundly beaten.
Sometimes, indeed often, we have to set aside idealism and fall back on pragmatism. A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step, getting shot of Trump can be that step.
Click to expand...
How have I "drunk the Kool-Aid" given my comment ended with "clearly they're not as off-the-scale nuts"

I also don't buy at all the "journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step" in this case... I would agree that the first step with Biden would indeed leave 999 miles and 1759 yards to go but I'd rather have had zero steps and the possibility that the democratic establishment would collapse and out of that would come real progressives like Yang that would take us most of the 1000 miles in one go.
 
smogontherhine said:
Have to agree with the comments on here that rightly state the MSM is as corrupt as the dodgy news sites such as breitbart or qanon... clearly they're not as off-the-scale nuts as them but their covert bias and disingenuity make them worse in my eyes.

As a typical example, look what MSNBC did to Andrew Yang.... The Hill
Click to expand...

But then you quote the hill and this is my point the hill is an excellent example of what I’m saying a credible news source well written well researched, politico is another as is huff post these sites do exist.
 
smogontherhine said:
....................democratic establishment would collapse and out of that would come real progressives...................
Click to expand...
Firstly is that democratic with 'd' upper or lower case 'cos if it's lower case then you're suggesting an end to democracy which I cannot support. Your single step of a 1000 miles is the idealism I refer to. You'll wait a long time for that and it'll probably never come, so let's set off anyway. I once read somewhere that often people don't set off on a, metaphorical, journey because they can't see the destination. The advice was go as far as you CAN see then you'll be able to see further.
The other problem is that when the establishment collapses, even partially, it's not usually 'progressives' who emerge. People who have the money and who crave power and influence make damn sure of that (see Brexit)
 
chickenrunner said:
You're right TT, Breitbart want to see the establishment smashed but I think they want to take things in a direction, apologies for my presumption here, that you may not entirely agree with. (y)
Click to expand...
I dont agree with anything Breitbart or any other right wing abhorrent political groups or their mealy mouthed servant shills (who we see here today) churn out.
I also dislike or detest ultra left wing politic ideology too.

I like people to have aspirations, dreams, goals, wealth, opportunities, fairness, and care for the people who want the same things in our society, to see it improve and grow.
The problem we have is certain groups pretend they own these attributes and desires and while rarely rolling these things out when they are in power they prefer to create a hidden enemy and scare people to believe that what little wealth they have built up will be taken from them by Labour with the help of the EU and the darkies.

They seem to do have that by dressing their real agenda up with buzz words and fear, "they" easily hoodwink us. They also assume they are safe in the knowledge that our attention span is very poor.

I think by and large they are right about us.
We aren`t progressive, we aren`t improving our society and we are to blame for its failure . The greed and control of right wing groups and their little minions who visit on here should be opposed at every opportunity and a more tolerant centre left political looking Labour Party should be embraced. IMHO of course. ;)
 
Access to information is now arguably at it's greatest point in the history of human civilisation, and will keep growing. This has enabled those previously without a "voice" to now have one, and as with anything - human beings are complex beings with conflicting viewpoints, beliefs and motivations. Literally anything posted online can now be opposed or attacked. In many ways, it's similar to how history is taught - the events are (largely) undisputed, but their rationale, impact and meaning will alter dependent on your beliefs and values.

It's arguably one of the first times in history that no-one really "owns" this narrative on a national/global scale. Historically we've seen the church, monarchy, governments and media fulfil this role but it's pretty much a free-for-all now. Ultimately, the loudest voice will usually be the most powerful, protecting vested interests etc (see previous list) but it's not clear cut how that plays out going forward, and whose voice that will be.
 
I think CNN ,MSNBC Facebook and Twitter took its toll on Trumps lunatic voters and outside influences this time around, can this be maintained.
I think Mr Stone and all the subversive tactics used before fell short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top