APP - Information Sources

M

midcan5

Member
Is what I am reading an honest attempt at accuracy? Can the source of the information be trusted? Is the source biased? Who pays for the source of the information? For what purpose is the information provided? If the source is politically biased can the information still be trusted? What about information paid for by corporate and/or wealthy supporters? Are counterpoints allowed on the site? What do investigative journalism and fact finding sites have to say about the source and its information?

As we enter another election season disinformation will cloud the mediasphere. One will read the [pick one] are behind whatever item the 'dark money' and 501c3 entities deem divisive enough to promote as news or agitprop. The purpose of these funded sites will be to distract, distort, and confuse. And like advertising it be tested and repeated ad infinitum. Below are examples of some of these sites and benefactors. Comments welcome from all.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

Dark money example:

"The Federalist Society is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Top dollar funding mostly comes from right wing groups such as the Bradley Group and the Koch Foundation. In general, most donors come from the pro-business right."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2019/04/09/daily-source-bias-check-federalist-society/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=extreme+right+sites

Source info:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations


"Today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups... So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." Philip K. Dick
 
i think that whatever the source you should argue against the content rather than the messenger. I normally find that the people who argue with the messenger are those who have no argument against the content.
 
tsuke said:
i think that whatever the source you should argue against the content rather than the messenger. I normally find that the people who argue with the messenger are those who have no argument against the content.
Click to expand...

But suppose the messenger always lies, do we have the time or are we willing to expend the effort to read lies and contradict them. There are many quotations from dictatorial regimes that if a lie is repeated often enough some come to believe it. No need for me to quote them.


"The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." Hannah Arendt http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/
 
Re: Topics in the News

For the interested reader see three ops from theGuardian, an excellent source of balanced reporting. What happened to independent thought in America, so much is now dark money supported.

'Of course Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But unfortunately that's not a crime' Richard Wolffe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/trump-collusion-russia-mueller-barr


''Whimsical, uninformed': French ambassador's parting verdict on Trump'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...d-french-ambassadors-parting-verdict-on-trump


'Mueller report: press secretary Sarah Sanders admitted to lying to reporters'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ort-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-lying-comey


"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey
 
midcan5 said:
theGuardian, an excellent source of balanced reporting.
Click to expand...

Some would disagree with that characterization, wouldn't they?

y66qsc5u
 
If they got it wrong they got it wrong. Not proven yet. Doesn't change all of reality much does it. Some guy long ago said, 'he who never made a mistake can cast the first rebuttal'. And Greenwald yet, that is certainly ironic coming from you. Given Manafort's record of lying and cheating, is he really more believable?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/the-guardian-paul-manafort-julian-assange

"There’s a lot at stake here. If The Guardian did get anything wrong, it would be an unwanted black eye for one of the English-speaking world’s most venerable news organizations, and it would help fuel the “fake news” narrative that Trumpworld so often resorts to when confronted with critical journalism. At the same time, if The Guardian stands by the piece but no other outlets corroborate it, the story won’t have the same level of impact as some of the other Russia-related bombshells that have come to light so far. That said, if any other major news outlet does match The Guardian’s reporting, it would take the scoop to the next level, possibly with major implications for the Mueller probe and, by extension, Trump’s presidency. A national-security reporter at a major U.S. news outlet summed the situation up like this: “If it’s right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it’s wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe.”
 
midcan5 said:
Is what I am reading an honest attempt at accuracy? Can the source of the information be trusted? Is the source biased? Who pays for the source of the information? For what purpose is the information provided? If the source is politically biased can the information still be trusted? What about information paid for by corporate and/or wealthy supporters? Are counterpoints allowed on the site? What do investigative journalism and fact finding sites have to say about the source and its information?

As we enter another election season disinformation will cloud the mediasphere. One will read the [pick one] are behind whatever item the 'dark money' and 501c3 entities deem divisive enough to promote as news or agitprop. The purpose of these funded sites will be to distract, distort, and confuse. And like advertising it be tested and repeated ad infinitum. Below are examples of some of these sites and benefactors. Comments welcome from all.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

Dark money example:

"The Federalist Society is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Top dollar funding mostly comes from right wing groups such as the Bradley Group and the Koch Foundation. In general, most donors come from the pro-business right."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2019/04/09/daily-source-bias-check-federalist-society/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=extreme+right+sites

Source info:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations


"Today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups... So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." Philip K. Dick
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that "fact checking" does not mean checking facts. "Fact checking" is a lefty thing that is biased toward the left, and it only checks facts that can help the lefty cause. If you ever find yourself fact checking via a fact checking site, you will be reading lefty biased information.
 
Evmetro said:
Keep in mind that "fact checking" does not mean checking facts. "Fact checking" is a lefty thing that is biased toward the left, and it only checks facts that can help the lefty cause. If you ever find yourself fact checking via a fact checking site, you will be reading lefty biased information.
Click to expand...

So then everything you read is a fact? That is what you are saying, right? But suppose what you are reading is Agnotology how would you know that?

"Given a choice between their worldview and the facts, it's always interesting how many people toss the facts." Rebecca Solnit


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?32481-Reason-is-not-Rational
 
Evmetro said:
I did not say this.
Click to expand...

I should have said your sources are accurate while fact checking is biased. That is an opinion not a fact so you are correct. But how would you know if you already know?

For other readers, below are more sites that check whether something is true or false, and Pres Trump is over ten thousand lies in these few years. Amazing.


https://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.politifact.com/
https://www.opensecrets.org/
https://www.truthorfiction.com/
https://www.snopes.com/
https://www.polygraph.info/
https://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
https://www.propublica.org/


And reporting outlets:

https://billmoyers.com/story/10-investigative-reporting-outlets-to-follow/

Odd but sometimes interesting

https://www.boomlive.in/category/factcheck/
https://fit.thequint.com/


"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact." Daniel Kahneman
 
midcan5 said:
I should have said your sources are accurate while fact checking is biased. That is an opinion not a fact so you are correct. But how would you know if you already know?

For other readers, below are more sites that check whether something is true or false, and Pres Trump is over ten thousand lies in these few years. Amazing.


https://www.factcheck.org/
https://www.politifact.com/
https://www.opensecrets.org/
https://www.truthorfiction.com/
https://www.snopes.com/
https://www.polygraph.info/
https://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
https://www.propublica.org/


And reporting outlets:

https://billmoyers.com/story/10-investigative-reporting-outlets-to-follow/

Odd but sometimes interesting

https://www.boomlive.in/category/factcheck/
https://fit.thequint.com/


"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact." Daniel Kahneman
Click to expand...

"Fact checking" sites are not sites that are set up for the altruistic purpose of presenting facts. Fact checking sites are there for the sole purpose of supporting lefty ideology. Never buy the euphemism that fact checking sites are there to check facts. The fact checking euphemism is a big lefty lie. I do not trust ANY media source, friend or foe. I use them all, but I trust none.
 
Evmetro said:
"Fact checking" sites are not sites that are set up for the altruistic purpose of presenting facts. Fact checking sites are there for the sole purpose of supporting lefty ideology. Never buy the euphemism that fact checking sites are there to check facts. The fact checking euphemism is a big lefty lie. I do not trust ANY media source, friend or foe. I use them all, but I trust none.
Click to expand...

Why would fact checking be leftist?


Thought this interesting.

https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-facebook
 
Evmetro said:
Actual fact checking is not a lefty thing, but selecting and organizing information that promotes lefty ideology and then presenting it as "fact checking" is certainly a lefty thing.
Click to expand...

But isn't that saying the same thing? Not sure if you have ever read Wittgenstein but he would enjoy this language game. How do facts promote anything other than information assuming they are facts? If we can't agree something is a fact then what.

"Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." Ludwig Wittgenstein
 
midcan5 said:
But isn't that saying the same thing? Not sure if you have ever read Wittgenstein but he would enjoy this language game. How do facts promote anything other than information assuming they are facts? If we can't agree something is a fact then what.

"Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." Ludwig Wittgenstein
Click to expand...

No. Selecting and organizing information that promotes lefty ideology, and then presenting it as if it were fact checking is deceptive. Information gets taken out of context and reassembled to form a new lefty narrative instead of the narrative that was originally intended. "Fact checking" is objectively looking for what the actual truth is without a subjective bias and intent to create a subjective narrative.
 
Evmetro said:
No. Selecting and organizing information that promotes lefty ideology, and then presenting it as if it were fact checking is deceptive. Information gets taken out of context and reassembled to form a new lefty narrative instead of the narrative that was originally intended. "Fact checking" is objectively looking for what the actual truth is without a subjective bias and intent to create a subjective narrative.
Click to expand...

So then you are saying 'fact checking' is not 'fact checking' unless it agrees with your interpretations. That's fine, now it's time for examples, please provide a few examples. Thanks
 
midcan5 said:
So then you are saying 'fact checking' is not 'fact checking' unless it agrees with your interpretations.
Click to expand...

No, it only sounds like that to lefties after it has been processed with lefty thoughts. Notice how you can't wrap quotes around where I said this? Lefties are only capable of thinking lefty thoughts, since they have never been righties. Righties however, were once lefties, since all of us are born as little lefties screaming for a tit or a bottle for survival. Since righties were once lefties, we can think like lefties, AND we can think like righties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top