The older I get...

[jpcedotal]

...the more I distrust anything reported about any topic, whether it be politics or human affairs or even science. I mean the only secular topic I trust as fact is pure mathematics.

Is this a common occurrence as we get older or is this a direct result from the amount of pure sewage we are required to swallow every day? I have just about gotten to the point where I watch the news once a week because there is so much hateful nothingness on it.

Everything seems to be about "divide and conquer", or "what I say is true, the opposing view is not only wrong but shows ignorance or bigotry or racism or some other negative character trait." It is no longer ok to disagree, it is now understood that any disagreement reveals some character flaw in the opposing view.

Anyways, I am glad I am secure in the Lord because those lost souls who are banking on humanity to come up with all the answers and speak the truth are building some big houses on some sandy foundations.

Just having a bad day I guess...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Maybe US news is particularly terrible, but I find that even when spun, twisted and manipulated, the news is still the news. You just have to look past the opinions and simply at the facts.

I suppose we benefit here in the UK from the existence of the BBC, which, as a publicly funded organisation, has to tread a very fine line when it comes to the news and so can't afford to do much more than simply report the facts. Perhaps try reading the BBC News website?

 

[CalledOutOne]

I fail to trust the news in the US too. Actually, SithDoughnut, I know people who rely on the BBC for their news even though we live in America.

The problem with our media is that it misrepresents anyone that doesn't agree with them. For instance, the media said that Chick-Fil-A will refuse to serve the GLBT crowd. That isn't true. In fact, Chick-Fil-A gave out free food to the GLBT protesters Friday.

Just shows you how messed up the media is in our country. The media has a huge influence on the people.

To be honest, I wish our democracy was more like Japan's and yours, SithDoughnut. A parliament would probably be better for us all. Being a theonomist/reconstructionist I would prefer a much different system, but out of the lesser of two evils I would much rather see America adapt Britain's government then continue this ridiculous bi-partisan check and balance system. Our government was set up in a hurry and we've hung on to some things that were meant by the founding fathers to be temporary.

Anyway, back on topic. The media here has far too much influence on the people. It is difficult, in America, for any conservative to say anything without being terribly represented. The media in America is simply not trustworthy. Even our history books contain many errors. In fact, there is a movement to take the holocaust out of our history books.

There aren't many things a conservative Christian like myself can trust. The science books in our schools are dishonest enough to make me sick. Even many of my Atheist schoolfellows would tell you that.

 

[Paradoxum]

It also seems to me that American media is biased, and again point to the BBC as a better model.

I see why people would be skeptical of politics, but I don't think you should be so skeptical about science.

Perhaps a good thing to ask yourself is if heliocentrism was presented today by scientists, would you reject it as liberal ploy to take us out of the centre of Gods plan?

 

[Illuminaughty]

The BBC is a breath of fresh air after having listened to the likes of FOX or MSNBC.

 

[The Engineer]

I see why people would be skeptical of politics, but I don't think you should be so skeptical about science.

Being skeptical about the science that the media present to you is always healthy, because those guys know nothing. Science itself, however, is pretty reliable, I agree about that with you. After all, the scientific method was invented for maximum reliability.
Wikipedia is actually a good source for everything science related, partially because they always link sources for their claims.

About the news, well, I'd suggest you stay away from fox news as far as possible, and always cross-reference multiple sources, no matter how inane individual sources may be. Don't forget it, reading several sources doesn't mean you must believe all of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thought better of it.

 

[WonderBeat]

The older I get the more obvious it becomes this world never existed.....

 

[Paradoxum]

Being skeptical about the science that the media present to you is always healthy, because those guys know nothing. Science itself, however, is pretty reliable, I agree about that with you. After all, the scientific method was invented for maximum reliability.
Wikipedia is actually a good source for everything science related, partially because they always link sources for their claims.

About the news, well, I'd suggest you stay away from fox news as far as possible, and always cross-reference multiple sources, no matter how inane individual sources may be. Don't forget it, reading several sources doesn't mean you must believe all of them.

True

 

[jpcedotal]

Fox News is not any more biased than the big three networks...it is just in the other direction. CNN tries to play the middle but when it veers off course it always seems to be on the liberal side of things.

As for the science angle, it is hard for me to think that the same people reporting politics and world events from colored glasses all of a sudden tell only the truth when reporting scientific news. I mean, how many times have I seen the headlines, "Creation finally debunked" or "The Beginning of the Universe Revealed" in Time magazine and Newsweek. So when these same reporters on on TV tell of some scientific breakthrough or global warming is caused by man...u will just to excuse me if I am more than a little skeptical.

The only truth man knows without God is money...follow the money on any topic and the corruption is revealed.

 

[The Engineer]

Fox News is not any more biased than the big three networks...it is just in the other direction.

Fox News is much worse, believe me.
Fox News airs altered photos of New York Times reporters - YouTube
They altered the photos of New York Times reporters so that they looked ugly. Seriously.

Fox News was behind the News International phone hacking scandal.
News International phone hacking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are also incapable of doing basic math.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/9/9f/FOXnews120.jpg

As biased as CNN or BBC may be, Fox News is a lot worse.

CNN tries to play the middle but when it veers off course it always seems to be on the liberal side of things.

That's why I'm saying you should cross-reference different sources, and don't shy away from reading unorthodox news sites. Some of them may be insane, but they can still help you find out the truth, once in a while.

As for the science angle, it is hard for me to think that the same people reporting politics and world events from colored glasses all of a sudden tell only the truth when reporting scientific news.

They won't. That's why you shouldn't rely on the news for science. They are good to initially find out about major discoveries, but if you want to know what's really behind those discoveries, you will have to check out real scientific sites. The best thing would be to check the original peer reviewed resources, of course, but that's not always feasible, depending on how well you know the scientific topic in question.

You also have to understand scientific topics. The best scientific news site will help you nothing if you don't understand what they are talking about.

I mean, how many times have I seen the headlines, "Creation finally debunked" or "The Beginning of the Universe Revealed" in Time magazine and Newsweek. So when these same reporters on on TV tell of some scientific breakthrough or global warming is caused by man...u will just to excuse me if I am more than a little skeptical.

As I said, don't rely on them. Look out for sites that report the science behind those discoveries, don't trust the ones that jump to conclusions without telling you how they arrived there.

 

[Paradoxum]

So when these same reporters on on TV tell of some scientific breakthrough or global warming is caused by man...u will just to excuse me if I am more than a little skeptical.

Don't believe them then, believe the scientists. I can't be that hard to have a look around the internet for what the positions of various science organisations are, or for the same news story by different media.

 

[CalledOutOne]

The problem with the media is that it is ran by man, so we can't fully trust anything. We have to train ourselves to eat the meet and spit out the bones.
The problem is sometimes there are more bones than meet.

We really can't trust anyone.

 

[jpcedotal]

Don't believe them then, believe the scientists. I can't be that hard to have a look around the internet for what the positions of various science organisations are, or for the same news story by different media.

That's my point, scientist are just as biased as everyone else. It takes money to run experiments and collect data and the money given DOES have an agenda or a result those behind the cash want "brought into the light". If these scientist come up with something different than what the money wants, the money leaves and finds another "scientist who will back up what is desired.

So even in this scientific community, there are agndas. To pretend it is only data in data out is just being gullible, in my opinion.

In the end, there is only God to put one's hope and trust in. Man is too corrupt.

 

[jpcedotal]

Peaceful Protestors

that's a black dude with the gun

we can swap media biased clips all day

Fox News is no worse, it is just opposite of what u personally believe so u are more in-tune with catching it on Fox, where u swallow more sewage from the other 3 because it is coming from the angle you believe.

It is worthless to try to one up each other on which is worse...they are both are pretty bad.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Peaceful Protestors

that's a black dude with the gun

we can swap media biased clips all day

Fox News is no worse, it is just opposite of what u personally believe so u are more in-tune with catching it on Fox, where u swallow more sewage from the other 3 because it is coming from the angle you believe.

It is worthless to try to one up each other on which is worse...they are both are pretty bad.

How is he not peaceful ?

He's exercising his right to carry an assault weapon, he inflicted no violence on anybody.

 

[jpcedotal]

How is he not peaceful ?

He's exercising his right to carry an assault weapon, he inflicted no violence on anybody.

u missed the point...the news anchors where saying white folks were carrying guns because Obama was black and showed the video zoomed in on a black guy.

Deliberate false reporting

 

[Living in the Light]

Well JP, it does seem like there is a lot of spin out there these days, but you are still pretty young still and will get even better at discernment as the years pass. I always like to ask myself, "Does this have a ring of truth about it.?

 

[Paradoxum]

That's my point, scientist are just as biased as everyone else. It takes money to run experiments and collect data and the money given DOES have an agenda or a result those behind the cash want "brought into the light". If these scientist come up with something different than what the money wants, the money leaves and finds another "scientist who will back up what is desired.

So even in this scientific community, there are agndas. To pretend it is only data in data out is just being gullible, in my opinion.

In the end, there is only God to put one's hope and trust in. Man is too corrupt.

How about when a climate skeptic scientist receives a fair proportion of their money from someone who is anti-man-made-global-warming but nevertheless realises that it is very much the fault of humans at the end of the study?

Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change

The scientific method is there to find the truth and I think it is wrong to put the findings of science on the same level as the opinion of politics.

 

[jpcedotal]

How about when a climate skeptic scientist receives a fair proportion of their money from someone who is anti-man-made-global-warming but nevertheless realises that it is very much the fault of humans at the end of the study?

Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change

The scientific method is there to find the truth and I think it is wrong to put the findings of science on the same level as the opinion of politics.

I believe the science is in bed with politics more often than not.