A question for those who reject the mainstream media

[PloverWing]

(I would have called this "epistemology", but then no one would read it. )

I have recently heard a number of CF participants express their rejection of the mainstream media -- the mainstream media lie, can't be trusted to report accurately, etc. If you're one of these, my question is: What do you do instead, in order to get accurate information about current events?

Back in the Olden Days, there were a number of newspapers and news outlets that were regarded as usually reliable: the newspapers of major American cities (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.), together with a handful of other news sources: the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Nobody's infallible, but if an event was reported by two or three of these sources, it was probably true.

I gather that many of you now reject these sources of news. But you still, presumably, want to get accurate information about current events, so that you can be an informed voter. So, what do you do to get accurate information? Do you do investigative reporting yourself? Are you forming your own news organizations, where you and a group of buddies investigate events and write up your findings? Or, do you rely on news sources outside the US, like the BBC (on the reasoning that they're not as biased about American news)? Alternatively, do you take a completely agnostic/skeptical position, that it's not possible ever to know what's happening in current events?

What do you do, day to day, to get reliable information about current events?

 

[Rajni]

I just don't worry about it. If it requires "news" for me to know that something took place, it probably wasn't something I absolutely needed to know took place.

And it's not just mainstream media that I'd be skeptical of, but any second-hand information, and for that very reason: it's second-hand information.

I simply realize that I don't know what's going on in the world, I just know what's being said is going on in the world. The two may or may not be the same thing, but unless it's something in which I'm personally involved, I won't know for sure.


-

 

[bhsmte]

(I would have called this "epistemology", but then no one would read it. )

I have recently heard a number of CF participants express their rejection of the mainstream media -- the mainstream media lie, can't be trusted to report accurately, etc. If you're one of these, my question is: What do you do instead, in order to get accurate information about current events?

Back in the Olden Days, there were a number of newspapers and news outlets that were regarded as usually reliable: the newspapers of major American cities (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.), together with a handful of other news sources: the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Nobody's infallible, but if an event was reported by two or three of these sources, it was probably true.

I gather that many of you now reject these sources of news. But you still, presumably, want to get accurate information about current events, so that you can be an informed voter. So, what do you do to get accurate information? Do you do investigative reporting yourself? Are you forming your own news organizations, where you and a group of buddies investigate events and write up your findings? Or, do you rely on news sources outside the US, like the BBC (on the reasoning that they're not as biased about American news)? Alternatively, do you take a completely agnostic/skeptical position, that it's not possible ever to know what's happening in current events?

What do you do, day to day, to get reliable information about current events?

In today's world of the need and focus on ratings and the wide division on the country from an ideology standpoint, media outlets have developed to cater to each of these crowds.

The mainstream media doesn't report lies IMO, but they will report stories differently. They will focus more on certain facts and diminish other facts, to help fit the narrative they tend to follow. One needs to read and observe, several different sources of the media, to get a more objective view of the facts.

 

[Greg J.]

When one has a superior knowledge and general experience with the topic of a media release, one can learn the sort of ways articles get twisted. From American news media, I don't usually question cold hard facts, but rather what humans have said along with them—or how they have said it—to say additional things. For example, sometimes the sensational aspects of an event are highlighted and can even become "viral," but in actuality are a minor part of what happened. Or perhaps they were major, but now the parties close to the subject moved past them quickly indicating the issue wasn't like it appeared to be to the journalist. One thing that is generally easy to spot is when a journalist guesses at additional information for you.

Here's an exercise for the interested: read/watch news and pay attention to how much of the report is about things that have not happened yet. (Who can foretell the future?) I think we all at times try to fill an information void (which can give an empty feeling) with what might happen (which can give a more satisfying feeling). I appreciate it when the journalist has done so with related cold, hard facts, and don't appreciate it when it is done with opinion. (Sometimes the opinion of experts is a good addition, and sometimes it is useless—such as when different experts have widely differing opinions.)

 

[bhsmte]

When one has a superior knowledge and general experience with the topic of a media release, one can learn the sort of ways articles get twisted. From American news media, I don't usually question cold hard facts, but rather what humans have said along with them—or how they have said it—to say additional things. For example, sometimes the sensational aspects of an event are highlighted and can even become "viral," but in actuality are a minor part of what happened. Or perhaps they were major, but now the parties close to the subject moved past them quickly indicating the issue wasn't like it appeared to be to the journalist. One thing that is generally easy to spot is when a journalist guesses at additional information for you.

Here's an exercise for the interested: read/watch news and pay attention to how much of the report is about things that have not happened yet. (Who can foretell the future?) I think we all at times try to fill an information void (which can give an empty feeling) with what might happen (which can give a more satisfying feeling). I appreciate it when the journalist has done so with related cold, hard facts, and don't appreciate it when it is done with opinion. (Sometimes the opinion of experts is a good addition, and sometimes it is useless—such as when different experts have widely differing opinions.)

Well stated.

It is a really good exercise, to watch or read different news sources and observe how they report each story. What they focus on and what they minimize and how much they include opinion in what they report.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Ever heard of the alternative media?

 

[bhsmte]

Ever heard of the alternative media?

Tell us about it.

 

[HannahT]

I read many news sources, because they all have different parts put in that others leave out. It's a shame you have to do that, but it is what it is. Some stories have very little facts, and more opinion...and twist and turns. Then they foreSEE the future, etc. Then you go to the next site, and you can pick up MORE of the same story, and then on to the next...and so forth.

What amazes me is they are all reporting on the same story, and yet all of them can come out completely different depending on how the story is told.

I don't want their opinion, twists or turns. I don't need for them to foreSEE the future. Give me the facts without the melodramatics, and let me make up my own mind. I really don't need to know why these people find it great, hate it, feel it could be racist, etc. I don't need to be talked down to, and informed on what is what. I'm more than able to do so myself.

I could less commentary, and more facts. I don't need to be led, and manipulated.

 

[bobo_mcpherson]

Alternative Media is just a way for people who have ZERO training in journalism but access to a webpage and HTML scripting software to tell us what they think is happening without having to worry about journalistic standards and ethics.

Sure there are a few people out there who are not part of the established media that provide some insight but in general "Alternative Media" is just a way for people to expand out the meaning of "journalism" until it has no meaning.

It's how Confirmation Bias gets to sound like meaningful insight.

When I see the kind of schlock the Right relies on for information and who they excoriate the most bland and unbiased news sources I fully understand why they like Trump and the new version of "Conservatism".

 

[bhsmte]

I read many news sources, because they all have different parts put in that others leave out. It's a shame you have to do that, but it is what it is. Some stories have very little facts, and more opinion...and twist and turns. Then they foreSEE the future, etc. Then you go to the next site, and you can pick up MORE of the same story, and then on to the next...and so forth.

What amazes me is they are all reporting on the same story, and yet all of them can come out completely different depending on how the story is told.

I don't want their opinion, twists or turns. I don't need for them to foreSEE the future. Give me the facts without the melodramatics, and let me make up my own mind. I really don't need to know why these people find it great, hate it, feel it could be racist, etc. I don't need to be talked down to, and informed on what is what. I'm more than able to do so myself.

I could less commentary, and more facts. I don't need to be led, and manipulated.

In general, how much of the media delivers stories, is equivalent to a game of "telephone".

 

[PloverWing]

Ever heard of the alternative media?

This is part of what I'm asking about. What alternative media do you rely on, and why do you find them to be more reliable than the professional newspapers? What methods do they use for their investigations that are superior to those used by professional reporters in mainstream newspapers?

 

[BubbaJack]

Alternative Media is just a way for people who have ZERO training in journalism but access to a webpage and HTML scripting software to tell us what they think is happening without having to worry about journalistic standards and ethics.

Sure there are a few people out there who are not part of the established media that provide some insight but in general "Alternative Media" is just a way for people to expand out the meaning of "journalism" until it has no meaning.

It's how Confirmation Bias gets to sound like meaningful insight.

When I see the kind of schlock the Right relies on for information and who they excoriate the most bland and unbiased news sources I fully understand why they like Trump and the new version of "Conservatism".

It's an alternative to the slobbering, knee-padded, sycophantic toadies of the mainstream media, who's cooperation and service to the DNC is plain for all to see.

 

[USincognito]

Ever heard of the alternative media?

Is that like alternative medicine?

 

[Greg J.]

Oh, I should have mentioned in my post that my failure to follow the general news isn't because I find it inaccurate. It is still a useful source of facts after filtering them. I don't follow it because what constitutes "news" to me is not the same as what media organizations think an acceptable stream of "news" is.

 

[USincognito]

It's an alternative to the slobbering, knee-padded, sycophantic toadies of the mainstream media, who's cooperation and service to the DNC is plain for all to see.

Alternative facts.

 

[Rion]

For one thing, you can skip the first two paragraphs and see if the article completely contradicts the headline. Another thing is to watch the source of the reports itself, and decide for yourself. You'll be amazed how much of the media's lies are lies of omission.

Finally, the term "alternative news" is a very broad term, and it should not be used to glorify nor disparage anything that falls under the term. I personally find the certain alternative media sources good for finding sources which show where the corporate media have left out unfortunate facts. For example, how many people here know about the riots in France? I'm not saying that the media has mostly ignored it here out of nefarious intentions. I am sure that their obsession with "muh Russia " has made anything else drop off the radar.

Finally, the idea that a news story comes from a major media corporation somehow makes it more authoritive is ridiculous. Many of them started out as "alternative media " and several of the founders took part in small news agencies.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Alternative Media is just a way for people who have ZERO training in journalism but access to a webpage and HTML scripting software to tell us what they think is happening without having to worry about journalistic standards and ethics.

Sure there are a few people out there who are not part of the established media that provide some insight but in general "Alternative Media" is just a way for people to expand out the meaning of "journalism" until it has no meaning.

It's how Confirmation Bias gets to sound like meaningful insight.

When I see the kind of schlock the Right relies on for information and who they excoriate the most bland and unbiased news sources I fully understand why they like Trump and the new version of "Conservatism".

The MSM is just jealous that people don't have to depend on them anymore...

 

[Vylo]

When one has a superior knowledge and general experience with the topic of a media release, one can learn the sort of ways articles get twisted. From American news media, I don't usually question cold hard facts, but rather what humans have said along with them—or how they have said it—to say additional things. For example, sometimes the sensational aspects of an event are highlighted and can even become "viral," but in actuality are a minor part of what happened. Or perhaps they were major, but now the parties close to the subject moved past them quickly indicating the issue wasn't like it appeared to be to the journalist. One thing that is generally easy to spot is when a journalist guesses at additional information for you.

Here's an exercise for the interested: read/watch news and pay attention to how much of the report is about things that have not happened yet. (Who can foretell the future?) I think we all at times try to fill an information void (which can give an empty feeling) with what might happen (which can give a more satisfying feeling). I appreciate it when the journalist has done so with related cold, hard facts, and don't appreciate it when it is done with opinion. (Sometimes the opinion of experts is a good addition, and sometimes it is useless—such as when different experts have widely differing opinions.)

This is actually a big source of the problem. When any one can report things in seconds, it greatly increases exposure and decreases the time between events and reporting, but at the expense of accuracy. It is much easier and faster for news outlets to rely on someone tweeting from an event, than to actually have to verify the events themselves, and this leads to them becoming lazy and hurts their ability to dig into things.

 

[USincognito]

For example, how many people here know about the riots in France? I'm not saying that the media has mostly ignored it here out of nefarious intentions. I am sure that their obsession with "muh Russia " has made anything else drop off the radar.

The ones that CNN covered when they started:
Violence erupts at protests over alleged police rape in Paris suburb - CNN.com
and covered as recently as Thursday?
Paris students blockade schools in anti-police protests - CNN.com

 

[Vylo]

The MSM is just jealous that people don't have to depend on them anymore...

Or just dismayed that p

The ones that CNN covered when they started:
Violence erupts at protests over alleged police rape in Paris suburb - CNN.com
and covered as recently as Thursday?
Paris students blockade schools in anti-police protests - CNN.com

CNN reports on almost anything happening, you just might miss it when a plane crashes.