Thread

The people on here are so anti-legacy media, that they all switched over to media that errs in the opposite direction, and therefore remain poorly informed. If you see or hear some news, put in some more effort to make sure it is confirmable, before allowing it to affect your worldview. If the news makes you happy and reassures you that _nothing has changed_ then work extra-hard to confirm it, as that is a sign that it is mere propaganda. You see me posting news that reflects poorly on Germany and the EU, and the same for both the Republicans and the Democrats, and the same for Ukraine and Russia, as well as news that reflects well on them, because I am willing to entertain the idea that: * Nobody is always right. * Nobody is always wrong. * Nobody is perfectly good. * Nobody is perfectly evil. * Things are constantly influx. * The world is full of surprises, and the occasional miracle. Life is complicated. News, also.

Replies (6)

↩ replying to Micael
But only God knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Knowing the full truth requires omniscience. Everyone else -- even with the most noble intentions -- is only telling you the part of the truth that they know and that they have selected as important to communicate to you. Also, some of the things they believe to be true, are not true, or are no longer true. And, sometimes, their communication is not effective, so they think they are telling you one thing, but you receive some other message. The news is no exception to this rule, so there can be no news source with 100% truth, and you wouldn't understand it, even if there were.
↩ replying to Micael
The first rule of rhetoric is that _all human interaction is rhetorical_. Most people are just so bad at it, that they wield it poorly, can't recognize when someone else uses it, and/or live in a state of constant paranoia that *everything is a psyop*. This is simply how humans communicate, as adding interpretation, structure, prioritization, etc. to a data set is what turns it into information. And information is what is valuable, not raw data. Humans can only consume data in relation to something else, and journalists are paid to explain to us what these relationships are. They are a specialized type of data analyst. Well, they are a data analyst, if they are true to their profession. If they are adding more interpretation than the data allows, or skipping the data and just spouting unfounded opinions, then they are activists, politicians, or propagandists. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's also not journalism.