Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I think some of it comes from cock-ups rather than conspiracies governmentally, and conspiracies rather than cock-ups peddled by determined campaigners for their own ends.
The ordinary Press and commercial broadcasters don't help if they have particular political biases but they are usually easy to spot if you have an open mind and ask what they have not said, as well as what they did say. One sign that a source is reasonably neutral is it being attacked as biased, by both sides of arguments or politics. That probably means the critics are cross because the source dares to publish their opponents' views.
There are two things very damaging to trust, and recognised by professional journalists as a problem in trying to give balanced work:
- A genuine expert who is talking straight facts but not a good communicator, pitted against a smooth-talking charlatan. This is not necessarily the fault of the expert, but could well be that of whoever selected him or her as the Interviewee.
- Cowardice! Yes, cowardice, mixed with complacency or arrogance. Here, the agency or company accused of incompetent or sharp practice is invited to respond, but either refuses full-stop, claims "no-one available for comment", or merely issues a bland statement as useless as that 1990s business fad, the "mission statement". You hear this all the time on investigative programmes like [i]Today[/i] and [i]Your And Yours[/i].
Note though the report's key phrases:
[quote]... think that they know someone....[/quote]
[quote]... believe it is likely...[/quote]
[quote]... role of social circle...[/quote]
[quote]... that they know someone who...[/quote]
Those are not direct experiences, and the second suggests a lot of parroting, though a few of those asked might have been talking of close friends or relatives. I don't know if the third includes "social media" or means genuine personal circles only, but raises asking if at least some individuals are susceptible to peer-pressure.
A worrying result, showing what a lot of Americans think, or that they don't think, and possibly why.
The ordinary Press and commercial broadcasters don't help if they have particular political biases but they are usually easy to spot if you have an open mind and ask what they have not said, as well as what they did say. One sign that a source is reasonably neutral is it being attacked as biased, by both sides of arguments or politics. That probably means the critics are cross because the source dares to publish their opponents' views.
There are two things very damaging to trust, and recognised by professional journalists as a problem in trying to give balanced work:
- A genuine expert who is talking straight facts but not a good communicator, pitted against a smooth-talking charlatan. This is not necessarily the fault of the expert, but could well be that of whoever selected him or her as the Interviewee.
- Cowardice! Yes, cowardice, mixed with complacency or arrogance. Here, the agency or company accused of incompetent or sharp practice is invited to respond, but either refuses full-stop, claims "no-one available for comment", or merely issues a bland statement as useless as that 1990s business fad, the "mission statement". You hear this all the time on investigative programmes like [i]Today[/i] and [i]Your And Yours[/i].
Note though the report's key phrases:
[quote]... think that they know someone....[/quote]
[quote]... believe it is likely...[/quote]
[quote]... role of social circle...[/quote]
[quote]... that they know someone who...[/quote]
Those are not direct experiences, and the second suggests a lot of parroting, though a few of those asked might have been talking of close friends or relatives. I don't know if the third includes "social media" or means genuine personal circles only, but raises asking if at least some individuals are susceptible to peer-pressure.
A worrying result, showing what a lot of Americans think, or that they don't think, and possibly why.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
The government of Canada is now running adverts telling Canadians that the government can inform you if what you are reading or hearing is misinformation or not. Of course that ad is misinformation. Sadly for the gvt it has lost almost all credibility on the vax with only the 'true believers' still holding out that the vax is a good thing. Many of those who willingly took the jab now wish they hadn't and are actively seeking some way to detoxify to get rid of it even though a year or more has passed since they got it. They are still feeling the ill effects of it.
smiler2012 · 56-60
{@walterf] to my way of thinking if the conspiracy theorist who preach there sceptical facts you have two options . either you sit and listen too every word they say and accept this as the gospel truth . then you make the concerted effort to make your own enquires from sources who are giving you true facts not there bias take
WalterF · 70-79, M
@smiler2012 Your advice, interestingly, includes two elements, which must be listened to. One's mind should then be made up after due consideration of the two.
That is exactly what sensible people do.
You really have to fight hard to find the other point of view from the one that is spread 24/7/366 by TV, radio and celeb news - because that other point of view is censored out of existence.
Have you searched out the other point of view? It's not lacking in weight and substance, coming from tens of thousands of big names in science and more specifically from medicine!
Strange how they are hounded and completely cancelled.
That is exactly what sensible people do.
You really have to fight hard to find the other point of view from the one that is spread 24/7/366 by TV, radio and celeb news - because that other point of view is censored out of existence.
Have you searched out the other point of view? It's not lacking in weight and substance, coming from tens of thousands of big names in science and more specifically from medicine!
Strange how they are hounded and completely cancelled.
smiler2012 · 56-60
@WalterF well alright you come to your own conclusion on this one depends who convices you is right and who does not your call
ravenhill · M
oh dear, you sound a crackpot.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ravenhill So how many jabs did you take before you realized those things were not doing you any good?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
WalterF · 70-79, M
@ravenhill And you sound like a worshipper at the Temple of Covid, with its high priest ArchDeceiver Fauci, grateful to the god Injection for having prevented you from dying from the Chinese flu.
Go for it, pal - keep believing, and I just hope it won't all come back and bite you.
Go for it, pal - keep believing, and I just hope it won't all come back and bite you.
It’s sad to see what is happening to North America……
Funlov · M
Nuts
BigGuy2 · 26-30, M
It has become so prevalent, that now, once the 'establishment' or 'anyone' says "you're a Conspiracy Theorist", i'll reply...
[b] "get'n to the truth am i"[/b]