Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

trustful medias vs propaganda

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • trustful medias vs propaganda

    Which international medias do you know and which do you trust?

    What international medias do you not trust and rate as propaganda? (and why?)

    International medias I trust:
    BBC
    DW
    Aljazeera English

    about the rest I can't say so much. On RT I found interesting things but overall I think it is propaganda.
    CNN I'm also not sure if I can trust or not.

    In dir muß brennen, was du in anderen entzünden willst. What you wish to kindle in others must burn within yourself. [Aurelius]

  • #2
    Hard to say. I'm unable to show any pre prepared list, in general any international media that doesn't visibly turn left are to me trustful. The problem is all of them are lefty. Or at least that's what I notice.
    Last edited by jordan_rudess; 01-08-2018, 07:57 PM.
    http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/...20100803203515

    Comment


    • #3
      I know almost no international medias out of France 24, BBC, CNN and Aljazeera. I don't trust any of them completely because they tend to be naturally biaised (France 24 even admit it somehow by saying they are "giving a French point of view of the world"). To me, in different proportions, they are all making a kind of propaganda.

      That being said I naturally tend to go to France 24 since it's the first one I heard of, then if I see something "interesting" I'll generally check elsewhere if it's the same basis/speech or not, especially when it's related to France and its interests.

      Comment


      • #4
        Very good topic. I dont trust any of them completely either. Better to read more, -depends on news - but ask local people too, if I know there somebody. If I find something interesting I used to check more sites, search after the details, and original source too.
        Hungary is very good example why I dont trust.. the currently governing party tried to overtake and got under its ifluence the vast majority of the media as a first action in trying to control the news when they came to power. I read everything with a healthy scepticism, than analyze all the news.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Talise12 View Post
          Very good topic. I dont trust any of them completely either. Better to read more, -depends on news - but ask local people too, if I know there somebody. If I find something interesting I used to check more sites, search after the details, and original source too.
          Hungary is very good example why I dont trust.. the currently governing party tried to overtake and got under its ifluence the vast majority of the media as a first action in trying to control the news when they came to power. I read everything with a healthy scepticism, than analyze all the news.
          Do you prefer private companies which collude with government or special interest groups that own the media that are chummy with government?

          The OP listed mainstream media outlets that are purely propaganda. It was an amusing read. In fact, the entire thread is amusing. Thanks for the laugh, folks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
            Hard to say. I'm unable to show any pre prepared list, in general any international media that doesn't visibly turn left are to me trustful. The problem is all of them are lefty. Or at least that's what I notice.
            The majority are leftist and many have outright colluded with governments or special interest groups. The fabrication and spin is disconcerting considering it can be very influential to the masses.

            The OP did mention an interesting media source, though, RT. I think RT is somewhat of a 'special case' (my way of describing them). I think they are not trustful for one main reason: I do think they *tell the truth* but in certain ways and occasions, when it's convenient and to 'make the west look bad.' So, they can be informative but one should be wary at the same time. If there was a way to differentiate the fact that they are a pro-Kremlin mouth piece and Western media, it would be easier to accept them as a source but one always to realize why 'they're delivering legit news.' In case, this is not clear, it must be acknowledged, they have an agenda but like the expression, every broken clock is right 'twice a day' - there are times in which their reports are honest and accurate.

            Comment


            • #7
              i guess well known bbc, new yorker, el pais, metro, skynews i'm quite neutral about..

              people using words as propaganda, agenda and pseudo should eat anti-pschotics..

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ElinaMar View Post
                i guess well known bbc, new yorker, el pais, metro, skynews i'm quite neutral about..

                people using words as propaganda, agenda and pseudo should eat anti-pschotics..
                Yeah.. wait until the 'propaganda' turns against your pseudo liberal views. then you will need antipsychotics.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ElinaMar View Post
                  i guess well known bbc, new yorker, el pais, metro, skynews i'm quite neutral about..

                  people using words as propaganda, agenda and pseudo should eat anti-pschotics..
                  You must be related to Houdini. How do you manage to post wearing a strait jacket?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Media is too biased at all, tons of comments of idiotic news papers authors about their feelings and opinions aren't objective reports.
                    I don't blame here only western media what tend to be too progressive liberal, but right winged media as well.

                    I think everything what I read, no matter who writes it should be taken skeptical and as rhetoric. Somehow i adopted whilst last years to see emphasized terms in articles and often are authors like a jumping needle on defect vinyl record.

                    Nevertheless, i read articles from both sites of political spectrum and i'm filtering the information what seems to be usable for me to build up my personal view about a topic.
                    Often are comments below articles a better source than the article by it self. Hence I think that among the enormous mass of fake news, mind manipulation attempts and gibberish in all media, we have very good opportunity to create our own very realistic opinion about many topics. Certainly much more as all generations before, which didn't have internet, forums and chats channels to discuss with people which are probably personally affected with particular a information.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ElinaMar View Post
                      people using words as propaganda, agenda and pseudo should eat anti-pschotics..
                      Why ?


                      Originally posted by Hades91 View Post
                      Often are comments below articles a better source than the article by it self. Hence I think that among the enormous mass of fake news, mind manipulation attempts and gibberish in all media, we have very good opportunity to create our own very realistic opinion about many topics. Certainly much more as all generations before, which didn't have internet, forums and chats channels to discuss with people which are probably personally affected with particular a information.
                      Agree with both of your statements, reading the comments are very funny to me, you can find plenty of jokes, crazy lobotomized people, curious poeple... and also very well informed people with sources.
                      Internet also give the opportunity to be kinda realistic on my topic, but people from the older generations had better medias (before they put 10 advertisements for 1 "article").

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hades91 View Post

                        Yeah.. wait until the 'propaganda' turns against your pseudo liberal views. then you will need antipsychotics.
                        Anyone who mentions the 'New Yorker' and BBC in the same breath has some serious mental issues.

                        Anyone who is a fan of the BBC, you need to question as well. The BBC's credibility was shot long ago. People have been mocking their blatant slant and bias for quite a while.

                        https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/
                        https://order-order.com/2017/05/31/b...audience-ever/
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF9n6EAoe_o
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiO8Zxp_yGk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hades91 View Post
                          Media is too biased at all, tons of comments of idiotic news papers authors about their feelings and opinions aren't objective reports.
                          I don't blame here only western media what tend to be too progressive liberal, but right winged media as well.

                          I think everything what I read, no matter who writes it should be taken skeptical and as rhetoric. Somehow i adopted whilst last years to see emphasized terms in articles and often are authors like a jumping needle on defect vinyl record.

                          Nevertheless, i read articles from both sites of political spectrum and i'm filtering the information what seems to be usable for me to build up my personal view about a topic.
                          Often are comments below articles a better source than the article by it self. Hence I think that among the enormous mass of fake news, mind manipulation attempts and gibberish in all media, we have very good opportunity to create our own very realistic opinion about many topics. Certainly much more as all generations before, which didn't have internet, forums and chats channels to discuss with people which are probably personally affected with particular a information.
                          That's why the MSM was being called 'Fake News.' It was called fake news way before the media capitalized on the term and tried to discredit Trump since he was using the term a lot. It doesn't matter who is using it, since it's accurate anyway.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
                            Anyone who mentions the 'New Yorker' and BBC in the same breath has some serious mental issues.

                            Anyone who is a fan of the BBC, you need to question as well. The BBC's credibility was shot long ago. People have been mocking their blatant slant and bias for quite a while.
                            hahaha... this was my first thought too. However I think, I shouldn't toss stones in a glass house. At least the user didn't mentioned CNN as credible news source, this would be too much.
                            Last edited by Hades91; 01-09-2018, 09:14 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
                              How do you manage to post wearing a strait jacket?
                              it's a mystery.. maybe it's satan..

                              Sancta_Lux i feel like it..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X