Media outlets now

The problem with media outlets now is that they all have an agenda to promote and will say and do anything to promote it. People don't have to follow any media outlets but they often do and they are often not very good outlets to follow when it comes to delivering balanced information, and not getting things out of proportion or causing hysteria (e.g covid). Most of us have a herd mentality and are inclined toward groupthink and so it's incredibly easy for the media to influence and manipulate masses of people.

These days, it's primarily left-wing outlets that are using horrible and incredibly toxic narratives to implement their agenda and gain control...sadly many people end up subscribing to their messaging, and believing what they say. The media is responsible for so much damage that it's almost unbelievable. Most of what's coming from the right now is a reaction to that, although many of them are prepared to lie as well. We have two sides willing to say practically anything to defend their agenda, attack the other side, and "win".

When I think of how they were during covid in particular, it makes me want to dismantle the news media. They say they are here to inform people, and while that is true to an extent, it is increasingly the case that they are only here to scare, influence, and compel you.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CheekyBadger · M

There is an argument that the corporate owners of these outlets are simply trying to align to what they perceive as their customer base. In addition I have heard another argument which is that the way journalists are trained has changed, it’s gone from trying to be objective towards militant activism. So reality is probably a bit of both. Either way I think it is destroying the media in general.

SW-User

@CheekyBadger Ideology has surfaced as a really significant force in journalism. Journalists are bad now *because* they aren't objective, which is *because* they are ideological.

It seems that now people are unifying to inflict this type of mentality and rule on all of us. Groupthink aside, it's almost like they want to be indoctrinated and want other people to suffer the same indoctrination. Living in a free society where people can think for themselves and say/do as they please within the confines of all common sense laws seems to comprise a real issue for them. They want to create change where there doesn't need to be, and when it isn't good change.

I think it has reached the point that profit and corporate agendas are becoming almost secondary to ideology. Media outlets do have vested interests (that is undeniable), but I think in many cases now those interests are having to "work" around the ideology.

SW-User

@SW-User It seems to be the case that conservatives want to preserve the status quo and more progressive forces in society want and see a necessity in change. That said I do not see polarization in Europe. Most are moderate conservatives and there isn't such a big cry for change.

SW-User

@SW-User Yeah, but what is wrong with the status quo? And is this "progression" really necessary and beneficial to people? Another question is whether progressive ideals now are realistic and practical (they aren't).

I wouldn't say that most people in Europe are moderate conservatives. Also, any existing polarization depends on the country. I consider cancel culture to be a polarizing force, and that is happening in many European countries.

SW-User

@SW-User Depending on your standing in society and your ideals and morals the status quo can be seen as good or bad.
What "progressive ideals" do you mean? There are many.
Conservative parties have lots of support or social democrats who are slightly to the left. Younger generations tend to be more left leaning.

Cancel culture is a strange phenomena and I agree that it sucks for the most part. But there are instances were real problems were called out.

SW-User

@SW-User I am referring to all aspects of modern progressivism, which is demonstrably toxic and extremely divisive.

What kind of real problems do you think were called out?

SW-User

@SW-User I have to hold you on that.. please specify.
I think conservatism is incredibly toxic and divisive. There are a few oposit groups and a society where we all can get along is not possible. One side will always have the upper hand and usually through votes.

Ah stuff like far right politicians wanting to take away gay rights being pressured to shut up. Don't think that's necessarily bad.

SW-User

@SW-User What do you think conservatism is exactly?

I'm not aware of any mainstream conservative politicians who literally want to remove a person's right to be gay, so perhaps you could expound on that one too.

SW-User

@SW-User Well many conservatives are against gay marriage or don't want children to know that two girls and two boys can love each other, conservatism strongly ponders to religion especially to the church, conservative parties seem to support big companies rather than small businesses and workers, they fear change, ....

SW-User

@SW-User "Many" conservatives may be against gay marriage, but does that mean they intend to get rid of it or actually prevent gay people from getting married now? As for your second example, you are assuming "love" instead of just sex, which is really what those on the LGBTQ spectrum are trying to teach children it seems.

There is no reason to teach kids about adult relations, at all.

Conservative governments generally support all businesses, not just those big and scary Bezos types.

SW-User

@SW-User The claims that queer people want to teach kids about sex are blatantly false and please provide sources for that.
Yeah cause there are no straight kisses and love in Disney movies?

SW-User

@SW-User Including Disney in your argument is not going to work lol. I really shouldn't indulge it, but I will because I want to point out how absurd it is.

So, when children see Disney characters kiss on screen it is presented in a manner that is a.) suitable for children, b.) it's within the context of a children's story, and c.) the kiss or whatever other minor physical affection is being displayed is all the child can grasp, and they can't even really grasp that. It is not happening in the context of education, and it's not occurring under the guise of "enlightening" or "informing" our children. It is just entertainment, and there is no attempt in that entertainment to actually explain to children what happens in adult relationships. It's merely a passive portrayal of two characters expressing a fondness for one another in a fictional story, and it HAS to be depicted in a way that is easily understood by children, and appropriate for children. For instance, it would be weird to show a six year old child a movie about two normal adults who are romantically involved. Instead, children's movies (which predominately feature animation) have to make their characters into non-humans much of the time. Even if the main characters or some characters are human, they are in animated form and often surrounded by characters who aren't human.

Physical attraction and romance are *never* the main features of the movie either.

Teaching children about same-sex relations in an educational setting is entirely different because it is done simply for the purpose of supposed "education", not entertainment. Children can't and don't get it because they can't understand adult relationships and their complexities. Perhaps most significantly, it serves no valuable purpose and only results in confusion for children.

Seriously, I can't believe I have to explain such basic shit to you...what has the world actually come to?!

SW-User

@SW-User Basic shit is that at school all that is mentioned is that two men can love each other that's it.
There is no teaching of sex or anything like that 🤦‍♀️ That's just conservatives being irrational and in fear.
I'm done with this debate our worldviews can't be further apart

SW-User

@SW-User k den