When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'd just like to pick up on this point, and I'll use a thought experiment to show how it is absurd (in the sense that it's illogical).
For example:
Claim: The earth is more or less round
Counter claim: The earth is flat.
The actual truth here is, of course, that the earth is more or less round (except some stretching due to centripetal effects and tides etc). Even every single person alive now and before claiming that the earth is flat will not change the fact that it is in fact not flat at all.
I.e. if something is actually "True", then someone else saying "no it isn't", doesn't change the fact that some things are just "True".
With regards to propaganda, I think the propaganda bit is hidden in the articles/reports (sometimes hidden less well than in other instances). The way it is hidden, in effect in plain sight, is by telling stories that has a bunch of facts that can be fact checked as True. However, they then sprinkle in some absurdities (the propaganda), and people believe those absurdities as well, because "hey, those other things he/she said were true". It's very insidious, and as you get fed more and more of this kind of stuff, the more and more "authoritative" the propaganda elements become as well (because again, all that other stuff was true, right?).
Quite. I’d add that the notion that truth lay somewhere in the middle does apply to something like the Socratic method (dialectic), where ‘truth springs from argument amongst friends’, but yes, a truism is a truism whether or not it faces opposition.
I'd just like to pick up on this point, and I'll use a thought experiment to show how it is absurd (in the sense that it's illogical).
For example:
Claim: The earth is more or less round
Counter claim: The earth is flat.
The actual truth here is, of course, that the earth is more or less round (except some stretching due to centripetal effects and tides etc). Even every single person alive now and before claiming that the earth is flat will not change the fact that it is in fact not flat at all.
I.e. if something is actually "True", then someone else saying "no it isn't", doesn't change the fact that some things are just "True".
With regards to propaganda, I think the propaganda bit is hidden in the articles/reports (sometimes hidden less well than in other instances). The way it is hidden, in effect in plain sight, is by telling stories that has a bunch of facts that can be fact checked as True. However, they then sprinkle in some absurdities (the propaganda), and people believe those absurdities as well, because "hey, those other things he/she said were true". It's very insidious, and as you get fed more and more of this kind of stuff, the more and more "authoritative" the propaganda elements become as well (because again, all that other stuff was true, right?).
You miss a vitally important detail from that though, proof.
You miss a vitally important detail from that though, proof.
"Proof" is an interesting concept, and often misunderstood (and hence misused) you only have to delve into the conspiritorial nonsense of YouTube to see any number of videos with titles like "proof 911 was an inside job" or "proof AGW is a hoax"
Proof has no real place in science or any evidence based discipline
As the saying goes "proof is for alcoholics and mathematicians"
That's why science deniers and assorted bat**** crazy arseholes always bang on about "proof"
"You can't prove evolution", "you can't prove the earth is 14 billion years old and circles the sun" "you can't prove CO2 causes global warming"
And they are dead right, you can't "prove" any of those things and science actually does not attempt to - it is a massive but predictable straw man
What science and all evidence based disciplines do is say "based on all the available evidence" this "theory" or "explanation" explains all the observable facts
If a better "theory" comes along, that fits the facts and observations, then that gets accepted in the pantheon of human knowledge - but it can always be overturned if a better explanation comes along
Also it is worth noting that in science a "theory" has a very specific meaning
RT is as ****, and as good as any other media outlet. All sensationalise, bend the truth and headline hook.
There isn’t a media outlet out there, including snopes who are accused repeatedly of liberal bias, who tells the truth for the ‘good of the public’.
Books have to balance, the outgoings have to be less than the incoming and if a ‘bent truth’ will gain more revenue, sponsorship or likes it will be done.
Only a moron would think ‘my news is better than your news’.
RT is as ****, and as good as any other media outlet. All sensationalise, bend the truth and headline hook.
There isn’t a media outlet out there, including snopes who are accused repeatedly of liberal bias, who tells the truth for the ‘good of the public’.
Books have to balance, the outgoings have to be less than the incoming and if a ‘bent truth’ will gain more revenue, sponsorship or likes it will be done.
Only a moron would think ‘my news is better than your news’.
Only a moron would keep on making false equivalences
RT is as ****, and as good as any other media outlet. All sensationalise, bend the truth and headline hook.
There isn’t a media outlet out there, including snopes who are accused repeatedly of liberal bias, who tells the truth for the ‘good of the public’.
Books have to balance, the outgoings have to be less than the incoming and if a ‘bent truth’ will gain more revenue, sponsorship or likes it will be done.
Only a moron would think ‘my news is better than your news’.
30 years ago, if someone had tried to tell you that their skip-on-wheels eastern-block built Lada or Yugo was as good or better than a BMW 3-series of its day, you would have laughed in their face. Likewise, if a supporter of the local 4th division football team from some no-name town you happened to be in one day tried to tell you that they were as good as Man Utd, Chelsea, or whatever other top-flight club you might care to mention, you'd also conclude they were either quite the worse for wear from drink or drugs, or terminally deluded. In both cases, your reaction would be understood as completely reasonable by any halfway informed and intelligent person.
Taking the above into account, why are you so convinced that the same should not apply to news outlets? Is it really so inconceivable that some of them, for want of a better term, are mostly full of farmyard waste, while others, the vast majority of the time at least, report very factually?
30 years ago, if someone had tried to tell you that their skip-on-wheels eastern-block built Lada or Yugo was as good or better than a BMW 3-series of its day, you would have laughed in their face. Likewise, if a supporter of the local 4th division football team from some no-name town you happened to be in one day tried to tell you that they were as good as Man Utd, Chelsea, or whatever other top-flight club you might care to mention, you'd also conclude they were either quite the worse for wear from drink or drugs, or terminally deluded. In both cases, your reaction would be understood as completely reasonable by any halfway informed and intelligent person.
Taking the above into account, why are you so convinced that the same should not apply to news outlets? Is it really so inconceivable that some of them, for want of a better term, are mostly full of farmyard waste, while others, the vast majority of the time at least, report very factually?
RT is as ****, and as good as any other media outlet. All sensationalise, bend the truth and headline hook.
There isn’t a media outlet out there, including snopes who are accused repeatedly of liberal bias, who tells the truth for the ‘good of the public’.
Books have to balance, the outgoings have to be less than the incoming and if a ‘bent truth’ will gain more revenue, sponsorship or likes it will be done.
Only a moron would think ‘my news is better than your news’.
assuming it isnt using completely made up material. RT is well known for peddling propaganda and lies made up by the kremlin.
And by lies I dont mean making a mountain out of a mole hill, i mean complete fabricated information.
"We all know the earth is round because, uh, well, we’ve watched a lot of TV.
And because of the globes we had in our classes at school.
And because NASA says so.
And because NASA wouldn’t lie to us.
This is the same NASA which faked the moon landings.
(The mistakes in that piece of theatre would embarrass a schoolboy. Their litany of howlers begins with the earth being shown as the same size from the moon as the moon is from the earth and goes downhill from there.)
I have several problem with NASA." (and with reality)
As the RT strap line says "Question More" :-) and we are often told by scoobynet loonies "there are always two sided to every story" as the below (non photoshopped) pic clearly demonstrates
oh and is Sam a Brexit supporter - what do you guys think?????, does he think climate science is a hoax too - you betcha
PS i my view anyone who links to RT I simply regard - like good old Sam here "a flat earther" - guilt by association maybe, but I simply don't have the time to sift through all the climate/science/spherical earth denial bull**** to find anything truthful
"We all know the earth is round because, uh, well, we’ve watched a lot of TV.
And because of the globes we had in our classes at school.
And because NASA says so.
And because NASA wouldn’t lie to us.
This is the same NASA which faked the moon landings.
(The mistakes in that piece of theatre would embarrass a schoolboy. Their litany of howlers begins with the earth being shown as the same size from the moon as the moon is from the earth and goes downhill from there.)
I have several problem with NASA." (and with reality)
As the RT strap line says "Question More" :-) and we are often told by scoobynet loonies "there are always two sided to every story" as the below (non photoshopped) pic clearly demonstrates
oh and is Sam a Brexit supporter - what do you guys think?????, does he think climate science is a hoax too - you betcha
PS i my view anyone who links to RT I simply regard - like good old Sam here "a flat earther" - guilt by association maybe, but I simply don't have the time to sift through all the climate/science/spherical earth denial bull**** to find anything truthful
Its very sad you cannot seperate the ridiculous from the very plausible,
There are numerous complete fabrications throught history by our public funded peadophile ring the bbc as well as our Government,
Of course we are not the only ones at it, pretty much all governments do it,
Ours is just better at it as we have a few hundred years on them,
WMD in Iraq ....
The problem is the brain doners who just swallow anything printed or on a news report,
I don't slavishly follow the "official" line because it is "official", but rather whether it is based on evidence or simple bullsh1t
so the concept there is "always two sides to every story" is nonsense, one will be more than likely supported by evidence and the other will be a load of crap
do Governments lie - clearly that pretty obvious
I was against the WMD narrative, it was clearly bullsh1t - and marched to that effect
it my take a while but he will be proved innocent in time
no one who has been involved in the case, from his scottish prison guards to most of the scottish lawyers used in the case have any doubt he is 100% innocent
"it seems to me that 300 people maybe -- but the beneficiaries were many many more developed a system of churning money around in a never ending money go round making illusory profits (although very real if you look at the yachts moored in Monaco) in a global Ponzi scheme"
but if you expand your horizon and just view the world as one economic entity, what you are doing is just a wealth transfer between countries, - the global economy is a closed system, ( a winner = a looser) a bit like weather patterns, wealth flows from high to low pressure, to me the whole global economy is a massive ponzi scheme
in the weather analogy the driving force is he sun, in the world economic analogy the driving force is to desire to acquire power and wealth
I don't slavishly follow the "official" line because it is "official", but rather whether it is based on evidence or simple bullsh1t
so the concept there is "always two sides to every story" is nonsense, one will be more than likely supported by evidence and the other will be a load of crap
do Governments lie - clearly that pretty obvious
I was against the WMD narrative, it was clearly bullsh1t - and marched to that effect
it my take a while but he will be proved innocent in time
no one who has been involved in the case, from his scottish prison guards to most of the scottish lawyers used in the case have any doubt he is 100% innocent
"it seems to me that 300 people maybe -- but the beneficiaries were many many more developed a system of churning money around in a never ending money go round making illusory profits (although very real if you look at the yachts moored in Monaco) in a global Ponzi scheme"
but if you expand your horizon and just view the world as one economic entity, what you are doing is just a wealth transfer between countries, - the global economy is a closed system, ( a winner = a looser) a bit like weather patterns, wealth flows from high to low pressure, to me the whole global economy is a massive ponzi scheme
in the weather analogy the driving force is he sun, in the world economic analogy the driving force is to desire to acquire power and wealth
Pretty sure RT had some interesting coverage of the Lockerbie case when he was being released,
Pretty sure RT had some interesting coverage of the Lockerbie case when he was being released,
Qui Bono
PS in my view anyone who links to RT I simply regard - like good old Sam here "a flat earther" - guilt by association maybe, but I simply don't have the time to sift through all the climate/science/spherical earth denial bull**** to find anything truthful
read my text - I don't doubt RT produces some truth - aka the stopped clock fallacy
I just don't have time to sift through the mountains of obvious propaganda and flat earth bull**** to find it
there are better news outlets
remember - keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out
Even the Flat earth stuff will be for financial gain whether its Youtube videos or conventions.
I really doubt any news channel could seriously legitimise Flat-Earthers tho,
Would be suicide, topping the Fake News charts,
The worst offenders are the comedy newspapers that silly folk cannot see are clearly a wind up, almost dailystar levels of reporting
well read the first two links I posted
Sam Gerrans is an RT reporter - he believes in a flat earth, just look at his website I linked to in my previous post and below is more content from RT written by Sam
I was unaware of the growing Flat Earth movement until a few months ago. A friend suggested I look into it. This is a good friend. He’s intelligent. I’ve known him for years. He didn’t seem to be having a nervous breakdown.
I said I’d look into it and he duly sent me a few YouTube links
and bingo - a couple of youtube videos later - and Sam is a convert and flat earth believer (wake up sheeple)
anyone interested in the rise of Flat earthism (and it is on the increase)
here are two nice articles
"I watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research – here’s what I learnt" - and this convention took place very recently - April 2018
