Yep. Any story that disagrees with your view is made up. Any story that backs your world view is real
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yep. Any story that disagrees with your view is made up. Any story that backs your world view is real
I haven't got a world view I only give a flyer about my pensions value.
Was about to say the same. Also, if the Government can censor posts and get them removed, then surely they would have done it to this post....
They have been censoring any talk of covid vaccine side effects.
They have been censoring / promoting certain things around the Ukraine war.
Been promoting transgender ideology
They censored and lied about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
They have been lying about inflation (how bad it is / causes)
I’ve been saying it for a long time. Nice that Elon is finally releasing the proof. They seem terrified of his takeover for a reason
Last edited:
Disaster Deniers: Hunting the Trolls
Panorama
As US conspiracist Alex Jones is ordered to pay nearly $1bn to families of the Sandy Hook shooting after claiming the attack was a hoax, Marianna Spring investigates 'disaster trolls' in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ds10
Panorama
As US conspiracist Alex Jones is ordered to pay nearly $1bn to families of the Sandy Hook shooting after claiming the attack was a hoax, Marianna Spring investigates 'disaster trolls' in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ds10
Last edited:
You have misspelt “my” and spelt it “your” by mistake. Unless it was a sort of royal you instead. Since you are the one who dismisses most commonly reported things and then searches high and low for stories that back up your points. I must admit The Intercept is a significant deviation (and step up) from your right wing small town tabloid approach
I’m not saying anyone should believe all the mainstream positions. But when the counter comes from places like a Florida tabloid it’s stretching things a bit (again - I will reiterate the Intercept does real journalism but bizarrely is rather left wing - or at least that’s what I recall it being)
If that's the case, they haven't done it terribly well, seeing as you've read about it, I've read about it, I've seen plenty of backlash to transgender ideology, have seen multiple reports on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and how disastrous it was etc etc etc.
Even if that tweet is true, you've mashed up Twitter and Facebook conveniently with "the media". Now there is cross-breeding there, of course, but what is being reported there has nothing to do with traditional media, and yet you're saying it's undeniable proof of the government meddling in all media reporting. Pretty big leap that. Bob Beamon would be proud.
The same institutions said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was a lie. It was spread across many sources and countries. You think with today’s technology, they can’t form a coherent narrative?
Yet people still choose to believe everything they are told.
I find it quite incredible really.
The social media censorship is inextricably linked with media censorship. You don’t think the oligarchs talk to each other?
Vaccine damage is being talked about more and more. At least I tried to warn people
Who believes everything they are told?
Can you expand on your implication on the last point for me? Explain how social media censorship is linked with media censorships, and which oligarchs you're referring to? Do you mean the same oligarchs own the same entities? I'm slightly confused by your point there.
The wealthy & powerful that control all of the media institutions. Whether it be legacy media or social media.
They all have their own agendas, and they use their media outlets to push those agendas.
Some collusion occurs. Some narratives form organically as a story picks up speed. Some are given to them by government.
Im obviously not stupid enough to claim that every single story is fake news. But the overall themes I believe are pushed.
As I said - anyone - literally anyone that mentions covid vaccine side effects gets immediately cancelled. There has been zero conversations allowed about it in the public setting. Except for joe Rogan who was immediately cancelled and career threatened
Which traditional media does Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (or prior to that, Jack Dorsey) control?
Did you read the article?
Feds have literally been curating what is allowed on social media platforms.
Do you really think that is limited to just social media? Really?
I'll try again - Which traditional media does Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (or prior to that, Jack Dorsey) control?
Or are you changing that bit already?
Hang on. The lie about the WMD’s in Iraq didn’t come from the media, it came from George W. Bush and Tony Blair. The media reported it, as of course they were bound to. The exception was the Observer, which had the benefit of the leak from GCHQ analyst Katherine Gun.
Joe Rogan was cancelled and his career threatened? Is this a different Joe Rogan to the one who has the massive Spotify deal that they did not cancel? I didn’t realise there were two people called Joe Rogan with a large public presence
If you're genuinely interested in learning though - and I ask that with honesty and care, because I really would like you to learn stuff from people that do actually know things about what you're talking about - rather than just looking for anything that vaguely (very vaguely) might support your points, and therefore thinking you can say "AHA GOTCHA!" a lot, then let me tell you something.
Editorial independence is a thing. It's a very, very, very big thing for editors of any national press outlet. Without it, editors worth their salt won't take up positions at large media outlets. So when an editor is offered a position at a newspaper or whatever at one of the legacy media places that are owned by these oligarchs that you seem to think are all pervasive in these things (they're really not - they give a **** about whether their investment is making money. That's about it), they will insist upon editorial independence. So that means no interference from ownerships.
Now, I'm by no means saying that it has never happened in the history of ever (particularly in the case of Murdoch, I'm sure it has), but it happens a WHOLE lot less than you're imagining. That's not guesswork, it's knowledge. It just doesn't occur often at all.
I'll give you a real life example because it might help, and it involves an oligarch.
You should meet my friend David. He used to be the online editor for the Evening Standard. A publication that is owned by the oh-so-scary oligarch, Evgeny Lebedev. One of the oligarchs I'm absolutely sure you're referring to, that you seem to believe get terribly involved in day-to-day editorial decisions (they don't. They really, really, really don't).
David insisted (as all editors do - see above) on editorial independence. That was given, and was a given in accepting the job. In the whole time he spent as the online editor, he was only once asked to pull a story. It was a story they were about to run about Prince William having an affair with Rose Hanbury. Lebedev asked for it not to be run, as it was potentially awkward and he didn't want to get in the **** with the royals.
Do you know what David said? **** that, I'm going to run it anyway, as I have editorial independence.
So the story ran, at least for a day, and then it got pulled.
David was told he was a naughty boy for doing so, and that was it. Carried on his job as before. But the story was out there either way. And that was the one and only time he was asked (and refused) to pull anything, or had Lebedev try and influence anything that they ran. Regardless of whether it was about Russia, oligarchs, or anything else that might be upsetting to someone like Lebedev.
That's just one example of very many I could give you. There's a current thing going on that would show that further, but I can't talk about it right now because it would be incorrect of me to do so.
But either way, please, please, please, please try and take on the stuff that people who are far better informed in those circles might be trying to tell you. It doesn't show weakness to do so (quite the opposite). You can ignore it if you like, but it really doesn't do you any favours.
But you just said that vaccine damage is being talked about more and more? And then in the next post say that anyone mentioning covid vaccine side effects gets immediately cancelled? How can both those things be true?
I have a fair amount of time for Ken Klippenstein, one of the authors. It's also worth noting that Ken Klippenstein is pushing back against the right-wing narrative around said article.
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
As of about ten seconds ago. Screenshot from YouTube:
You must log in or register to see images
Now I don't follow Rogan. On someone's recommendation I listened to his podcast a few times maybe four or five years ago and realised it wasn't really for me. So when you told me he'd been cancelled my thoughts were:
1. He's been cancelled? Oh, that's a surprise, I thought he was hugely popular with a load of subscribers.
2. Hang on, wasn't there something about a controversy last year?
3. Did he get ****ing taken off the air? Genuinely? What!?
4. I'd better have a quick look to check if that's true.
You've read the result.
That check took me about half a minute. If you're going to repeat talking points you've heard without even a perfunctory check on whether they are based in fact, you're going to get pushback.
Attachments
Last edited: