Thread

Touché.

On a good day, yes.

You made up an argument that I never made and then countered it.

There's the premise contained in your opening paragraph! Do you even read what you write?

"Straying from legacy media results in one being ill-informed" This is the essence of your opening paragraph.

Pre 1990 in the eastern bloc there was channel 1 and channel 2 news. It was pure propaganda. The people knew it. The folks who never lived through this west of the iron wall are more susceptible to consuming state propaganda. If the tv spouts war is peace, then it so. In conclusion, you don’t need to eat 💩 to maintain a balanced diet. No, this does not mean Alex Jones is right 100% of the time.

Did you just put something in quotation marks that isn't a quote?

You're one of the worst offenders, on here, to be honest. Never seen someone so earnestly spout such a never-ending stream of hysterical, vapid bullshit. You never stopped drinking the kool-aid, you just switched to a different flavor.

It's called paraphrasing.

That requires prior phrasing.

Like the note you just posted?

The political spin tells you a lot of information too, if you know what you’re looking at

All websites are full of SEO optimized headlines and political agendas. That's how Internet communication works. Your best bet is to search for information on particular topics in all languages you can understand and then read through the results. (You'll quickly see that there aren't actually that many sources, as most websites refer to or summarize other websites, so it can take a while to get to the original source.) Takes me a few hours, for each topic. That's why I tend to post in batches, as I have to set aside a large block of time for this research.

Researching the Russian gold thing that easily consumed 7 hours of my time. It took that long to find anything verifiable.

I agree. Spin and propaganda are also information that sends a signal. It tells you a lot about their strategy and goals.

and that's the problem right there.

[my comment below was meant to go here]

Yeah but you'll have to read between the lines. Make your way around paywalls, cookies, captcha, re-captcha etc etc etc. I prefer raw intel over news headlines from general media.

I simply pay. I pay for numerous subscriptions, including to smaller sources. Mostly in German, but not only. Free stuff tends to not be very good, but that isn't my problem.

I see. I'm not a big fan of subscriptions. I don't even have Netflix. @npub17w9n...e4c0 does the news scraping for me.

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.

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.

Okay I get your point. Unfortunately there’s very few good journalists. The majority are paid mercenaries