Alternative news sources

[Sean]

Alternative, that's a laugh... Anyone who watches or entertains in any way mainstream 'news' is hardly worth speaking to- drivel and brainwashing for idiots.

Global research continues to have strong articles-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

And Alex Jones is on form here

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY4NDE0NTY4.html

John Pilger quoting east European dissidents- We have one advantage over you in the West, we know the media is just propaganda and lies, so how do you do it? Westerners believe every word of their single-view media perspective on each subject presented...

Sean

[Sean]

Great article on 9/11 by scholar John McMurtry

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013McMurtryVol35Feb.pdf

[ibanezmonster]

And Alex Jones is on form here

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY4NDE0NTY4.html

Nice.

John Pilger quoting east European dissidents- We have one advantage over you in the West, we know the media is just propaganda and lies, so how do you do it? Westerners believe every word of their single-view media perspective on every worthless subject presented to them.

Sean

That's why I don't watch TV for news- I go to sites with open comments.

[CaughtintheGaze]

Lol

[Poelmo]

Hey Sean, do you know somewhere I can get a good new tinfoil hat?
Some of the voices are getting through the one I'm using now.

[Sean]

I hear voices too.

[The new erato]

I hear voices too.

McMurtry certainly does. 

[drogulus]

     I can't imagine any problem with mainstream news outlets, a diverse category to say the least, that would justify giving ones trust to snipers from the wings who have far worse credibility than CNN and Lehrer on PBS. The mainstream outlets act to check each other. When one stumbles the others pounce, and this is all to the good. That's how a free press should be.

     The fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

[Parsifal]

The fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

[dave b]

drogulus---that was very well said.

[Sean]

Hi drogulus, I can't agree with much of that, in fact I'm not entirely sure you're not being sarcastic.

CNN? The mainstream media are businesses that just give their customers whatever they want, like any other business- I've been in business myself and if the paying client wants something substandard for whatever reason you don't start any big arguments. In the media case most customers want a view of the world to call objective and true but which really just supports their little sets of prejudices and existing ideas- they most certainly do not want any of that overturned.

America is good, Britain is good, Australia is good; Iran is bad, Syria is bad, China is bad- just bits of simplistic unsupported information chopped up by celebrity talk, sport and games fit for children, and pop music: was the McMurtry article broken up every three minutes by a smiling face with basketball results or some other market researched drivel to keep the brainless reader happily distracted from any kind of analysis?

You're completely wrong about lamestream media organizations criticizing each other- once one provides a new story the others will quickly talk about it also, keeping everything in the average person's narrow terms of perception, and by contrast there's a great deal of dissent and range of views in the alternative media.

In the recent Libya war for instance how many officials from the Libyan government were on CNN saying the US had no right to be invading their country and putting a serious and solid case across for people to think about? Instead there's one view preselected for the mindless democratic horde to hold onto: the democratic debates the likes of CNN hold are where different westerners say Libya is bad in this way or, no no, it's bad in that way!- it's really a total sham. You just wildly overestimate the average person's critical thinking abilities and the objectivity that a business selling a product is in a position to have.

Best, Sean

     I can't imagine any problem with mainstream news outlets, a diverse category to say the least, that would justify giving ones trust to snipers from the wings who have far worse credibility than CNN and Lehrer on PBS. The mainstream outlets act to check each other. When one stumbles the others pounce, and this is all to the good. That's how a free press should be.

     The fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

[Parsifal]

You're completely wrong about lamestream media...

You are operating at Sarah Palin intellectual level.  Not a good thing.

[mc ukrneal]

You're completely wrong about lamestream media organizations criticizing each other- once one provides a new story the others will quickly talk about it also, keeping everything in the average person's narrow terms of perception, and by contrast there's a great deal of dissent and range of views in the alternative media.

I think you are confusing the 'news' portion of those programs with the 'opinion and discussion and debates' portions. There is a difference, though they can be difficult to tell apart sometimes. But I don't really see a dissent or wide range of views in the alternative media - unless you mean widely crazy views at both ends of the spectrum (for example, the video you posted of that conservative ranter - who has lots of opinions, but this is not news). And this is my problem  - that people think the rants and debates and 'analysis' is news (regardless of which viewpont is chosen). Usually it is just someone's opinion.

[Sean]

Indeed there's a lack of factual information but I can hardly agree there is much of that on the nightly news, and what there is of course has been carefully selected and edited in advance. You make a good point but I feel that what passes for news services is no source of reliable data to go on- I can only reiterate the question of how anyone can take even the date seriously on products that claim or at least insinuate that they're giving independent information while interspersing it with extraneous mindless drivel. Best, Sean

[dave b]

"You just wildly overestimate the average person's critical thinking abilities ..."

Sean, with all due respect, I think you underestimate them.

[MishaK]

Sean,

You absolutely have no right to question other people's critical thinking abilities when you yourself fall for the most fallacious conspiracy theories yourself. I'll once again link here a piece by one of the finest investigative journalists active today and one of the sharpest minds I have had the privilege of meeting: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

[Gurn Blanston]

I had all those thoughts, and I'm not even a Leftist. Nor a Rightist for that matter. Just a Realist. Sad days for me....

[Karl Henning]

. . . Just a Realist. Sad days for me....

Keine Scheiße!

Take a cue from Dr Seuss, buddy: [Fantasy] is a necessary ingredient for living.

I grant you, it's but a poor substitute for news reportage, but . . . .

[Geo Dude]

Sean,

You absolutely have no right to question other people's critical thinking abilities when you yourself fall for the most fallacious conspiracy theories yourself.

Agreed.

I do have some of my own problems with the mainstream media (in the US), largely that they tend to be partisan and thus ignore or heavily cover certain issues based on how the story can be spun to support their views (or help their favorite politicians), but the idea that one can look to conspiracy theorists and find more logical and sane reporting for Higher Minds is silly.  That said, I feel that this Higher Minds idea is the crux of the issue.  Virtually every person I meet that focuses on 'alternative media' is convinced that they're more intelligent and have better critical thinking skills than those who get their reporting from mainstream media.

[kishnevi]

Agreed.

I do have some of my own problems with the mainstream media (in the US), largely that they tend to be partisan and thus ignore or heavily cover certain issues based on how the story can be spun to support their views (or help their favorite politicians), but the idea that one can look to conspiracy theorists and find more logical and sane reporting for Higher Minds is silly.  That said, I feel that this Higher Minds idea is the crux of the issue.  Virtually every person I meet that focuses on 'alternative media' is convinced that they're more intelligent and have better critical thinking skills than those who get their reporting from mainstream media.

I myself think the MSM is not so much partisan oriented in their coverage as dedicated to maximizing ad revenue, which means superficial coverage of whatever inspires TV voyeurs for the moment.  (Okay,  what was so important about the Jodi Arias trial that it deserved the coverage it got?)  And they tend to follow each other lemming like to the Story of the Day.  But I think a clear indication that the MSM is not so ideologically leftist as many people think is their coverage of the Bush Administration's WMD claims in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.  I don't remember any reporting on the part of the major outlets that actually challenged the WMD claims.  No reporter seemed to think it worth his or her while to dig into the question for themselves.  They merely reported adminstration claims, and sometimes counterclaims by those actually opposed to the adminstration.  But a regular viewer would have come away from their coverage thinking that in the eyes of the news media, the Bush Adminstration claims has a Seriously Substantive Basis to them.

And to the extent that ideology drives coverage,  Fox News is far more blatant than CNN or anyone else.  This morning,  the clead stories on CNN were the California fire and horrendous weather in the American midwest, and then the Congressional hearings on how the US military deals with rape cases;  Fox apparently thought the only story worthy of attention was today's IRS hearings.