Customize

a Reliable versus unreliable news media (Was: Terrorism?)

Discussion in 'Anonymous News' started by BrainStorm, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. fishypants Moderator


    Hey there B, independent thinking is good, don't let the inveterately grumpy dissuade you from doing that.

    The thing is to apply that independent critical thinking to alternative news sources as well as to 'mass media'.

    Ignore the trolls, say something interesting, and the more thinking contributors will come out of the woodwork eventually. ;)

    (IMO: Charlie Brooker has his head screwed on right, Alex Jones is as fruity as a nutcake, Russell Brand is egocentric and astonishingly ignorant of economics but I find myself agreeing with the general thrust of his argument (if not the policy details) surprisingly often. If you want Proper News then ignore TV news entirely and stick to the broadsheet newspapers, particularly the ones that Snowden trusted i.e. the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel. If Fox News says something then the opposite is probably true. Just my $0.02).
    • Like Like x 3
  2. BrainStorm Member

    No harm done, everyone is entitled to their own opinion hehe
    When I joined I was caught by surprise from the amount of trolling, probably because I was expecting the opposite. (OMG NOOB!)
    I will keep on keepin on lol

    ┬─┬ ︵ /(.□. \)
    • Like Like x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  3. BLiP Member



    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-21/how-us-government-convinces-newspaper-kill-story
    • Like Like x 2
  4. BrainStorm Member

    Thanks for that article Blip, good stuff. (can't give "likes" just yet lol)
    • Like Like x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. BLiP Member

    '

    Ross Brummet over at OpEd has delivered both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert a - loooong overdue good ole fashioned public spanking . . .


    . . . youch!
  6. BLiP Member

    Still on probation, eh? Tough shit. Suck it up.

    You're doing okay but I think you have to be nicer to the mods. Think of them as children. Speak clearly in a firm voice without using any big words or non-imaginary concepts. Adopt a constant love for them and seek at all times to further their best interests over the long term. They are your future. In short, its just a matter of trying to get over the fact that, really, the WWP mods are all fags who like to twiddle about in posts being important. Its an unfortunate fact of cyber life that anyone who volunteers to be a mod is, most likely, not at all suited to the role. Happily, and not without some trial and error and error and error, the current crop ain't too bad.

    Handy Hint: Shorten your probation period by joining the Red X Brigade . . . https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Kvg78kCcvo5gL7UfPcmhmbsagTNtdj0y2LAiHVFrCU/pubhtml You know you want to.

    original.jpg
    • Like Like x 2
  7. BrainStorm Member

    LOL
    I would mate,
    except that, I am in Europe.. so maybe wouldn't be of much help for that =P

    on another note:
    Why was the title of the thread changed? The tittle was short for a reason =P
    To pose a question, fast and effective interest.. lol
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    ^^^ Spam reported.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. BrainStorm Member

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  10. Thinly-veiled as a talk on astroturfing, a term that has been around since the 90's or earlier to describe the antithesis of grassroots activism in the form of corporate-sponsored "activism" intended to appear as authentically grassroots. Her speech mainly focuses on this activity, as she perceives it, being carried out by the drug industry and solely the drug industry - and she tips her hand about being anti-vax, too - though historically, astroturfing has been ascribed to many different industries - big oil probably being foremost among them. I think people would have been better served by her talk if she didn't focus solely on astroturfing by a single sector, as opposed to by all sectors; at the end, she exhorts people to wipe the fog from their glasses, so they will see the astroturf, but she has really only equipped people to see the astroturf of the medical industry, and not of big oil, coal, auto, etc.

    I hope she and her kids got their polio vaccines, though.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. Hugh Bris Member

    I just listened to her speech. I don't see how you got that she's anti vax from that.

    As for why she concentrated on one issue, well, that's what you do when you give a short speech, you focus on one topic. She points out how you, as a consumer of news, can look for the signs of astroturfing no matter where it arises.
    So your complaint that she doesn't address other forms of astroturfing is totally beside the point. She gave you some tools. Use them. Or not, but complaining that she didn't address your particular issues is just whining.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Between 3:30 and 4:00 she assumes there is a link between vaccines and autism, and describes it being "astroturfed" by conflicting paid studies and experts. I put the people who link vaccines and autism into the anti vax camp.

    It was a 10-minute speech, and she talked about two drugs ("colextra" and lunesta) while only giving real life examples from the medical industry. If she cared about helping people consume news more wisely with tools to look for astroturfing "no matter where it arises," then she could have exposed people to a wider selection of material. She gave the speech as if it were new material to the audience, when the ideas are 20 years old, which is why I think she could have brought examples from throughout the history of astroturfing, by multiple industries. Ten minutes is long enough to at least give mention.

    As for the tools she gave, they were superficial at best, and downright wrong at worst. She says to watch out for inflammatory language like "crank" and "quack," terms we use for bad doctors, and associated with medicine.

    She says to watch out for people who attack the people who question authorities, when the exact opposite is true for astroturfing campaigns of fossil fuel industries against climate scientists. The climate scientists are the established authorities, then astroturfing campaigns question that authority, and many grassroots campaigns and reasonable citizens are the ones who attack the astroturfing campaigns. In this case, the astroturfers themselves are the ones questioning the climate scientists' authority, and the ones who ostensibly would be vindicated by this particular "tool" she has prescribed for looking for astroturfing.

    You can call me a whiner if you want. I will express negative opinions on anyone who gives a TED talk where they think they can get away with just assuming there is a link between autism and vaccines.
  13. Hugh Bris Member

    After doing a bit more research, I think you are reading something that is not there. She is making a far more subtle point than you are hearing.

    These are not the words of an anti vaxxer:
    read the whole article. Her concerns are about how media and government report issues, or don't report them.

    I have no particular interest in her. Until a few weeks ago, I'd never heard of her, but I do think that you should not attribute positions to people who do not hold them. You misinterpreted what she was saying, and turned that misunderstanding into a mountain.

    I do not know if you deliberately misrepresented her, but I find your methods suspect, at best.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    OMG. You saw into my soul!
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins