Fact checking the MSM

a reply to: Mousygretchen

Desperate clutching at straws, 'inventive reporting' and increasing bias and political allegiances are in reality the MSM tightening the nooses around their own necks IMO.

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
a reply to: Reverbs


The hallmark channels of our media establishment have been around for many years now, and "programming" is designed to cater to their respective core audiences, as consumption of traditional cable television is waning, and the industry is dying, their writers and producers do whatever they have to do to hold onto their core audiences, and to this end they feel like they have to tell their viewers the same things that they believe and the ideas of which they hold stock.


Zombies turn on their favorite media channel so that they can hear what they want to hear. Your internet usage over time learns about your interests and provides headlines that it knows you will find interesting. People don't want cable television in the numbers that they used to and so they are desperate for ratings.


You know how important it is to cross reference.

that's actually one of the odd parts of this dynamic. Zombie people demand zombie news. And the news has to listen or not have the ratings but then it creates more zombie people who want zombie news.. Which came first the chicken or the zombie egg?

haha.

As for me I don't let the internet get any kind of sense on who I am. Everything is erased no autofill my ads think I need a russian wife and that I am a girl who wants bangles and tunics and high heels..haha.. Who knows maybe they think I'm lesbian?

I'm not looking to put the blame on any one factor.. We got to this place because this is what we are like as a whole.
And so I'm always after that base human consciousness node. Corrupt people in government is bad but everyday people are jsut as corrupt but without the money to be as evil. A poor person who notices a bank error in their favor and keeps it is not really different from a guy siphoning off millions in the derivatives market except at scale.

but that said, media would be the tool to enlighten the masses when schools are failing.
little minds can't see the world from my eyes.. Addicted to control and losing it.. Make everyone more intelligent and free and just watch what happens next.





and @MysterX exactly. They were given all the rope they needed with a completely dumbed down populace.. And then they had to poke the populace to follow propaganda when they made them so lazy even propaganada stopped working.. Funny little thing that.. Now people are paying attention again and the fake news are the main news sources. yea thats going to backfire.

Just be on everyone's team.. It's safer for all of us. Then you can't lose.

a reply to: Byrd

I don't trust any news source.

The problem is I don't trust the 'fact' checkers either.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Byrd

I don't trust any news source.

The problem is I don't trust the 'fact' checkers either.

And this is what I'm asking:

When a discussion starts, and fact-checkers step in here at ATS, a lot of times they are shot down with "MSM lies!"

So what source (that maybe debunked the first story) is trustworthy? I want to know if I'm making an argument against something in the article what sources would NOT be met with "MSM LIES!" responses.

And if I decide to post something, what sources look better/more credible?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Mousygretchen

Desperate clutching at straws, 'inventive reporting' and increasing bias and political allegiances are in reality the MSM tightening the nooses around their own necks IMO.

So if you were in a discussion and making a point against the original story - what sources would you use that are reliable?

Not "my own thoughts." Heck, if everyone did that the responses would be all over the place and we'd never get to the truth.

What sites are more reliable than MSM when someone wants to back up a point they're making?

Every subject is case by case and there is no "list" of trusted MSM and ASM sources.

All MSM and ASM "sources" have been right and wrong.



footnote: ASM = Alternative Stream Media

MSM are not real sources, they are information dispensaries.

If you want to fact-check something, you go to the source.

For instance, if there is a news story about unrest in Uzbekistan, call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan(or similar office who would be able to provide the information) and ask them.

Basically, you have to get the information from the actual source.

Another example, a news site claims RFID chips will be implemented through the new healthcare law. You would have to go to the congressional website and view the PDF in order to verify.

There are reputable news distributors out there, but fact-checking is a very tedious and sometimes expensive process.

You're not going to get a fact-check on the ground conditions in Syria unless you actually go there. Even video documentaries use propaganda techniques to embellish on certain aspects of a narrative.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Every subject is case by case and there is no "list" of trusted MSM and ASM sources.

All MSM and ASM "sources" have been right and wrong.

footnote: ASM = Alternative Stream Media

That seems awfully subjective.

You've seen discussions where someone posts an article that overturns the original post and the response - rather than a breakdown of why it's wrong and links to sources to show that it's wrong (or admitting that they have a point) is simply

"LOL! LOL! MSM!"

And at that point a good discussion turns into ... sort of trolling and the moderators step in.

So what sources should one use to keep the LOLs at bay if you're posting (let's say) an article that calls into question something about Trump when the OP posted a glowing report about Trump? (or something about medicine or any of the other hot button topics.)

If someone's posting an article that disagrees with something you posted - which sources do you dismiss immediately and which make you at least stop and look at the article that disagrees with your first post?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
MSM are not real sources, they are information dispensaries.

If you want to fact-check something, you go to the source.

For instance, if there is a news story about unrest in Uzbekistan, call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan(or similar office who would be able to provide the information) and ask them.

Basically, you have to get the information from the actual source..

We can't do that, and in the middle of a discussion thread (like this one), people aren't headed off to call Uzbekistan (or so forth) to link to a point they want to make. When we chat here on ATS, we're linking to other sites and stories and basically relying on those sites to fact check for us.

Most here seem to reject many mainstream stories (the "MSM - LOL!" comments we see all over.) I'm curious about what kind of sources I could use when I'm making a counterpoint that people would actually READ (or glance at) rather than sneering "MSM - LOL!" and not reading or looking at the article I linked.

If there's better sites to choose for this kind of counterpoint, I want to learn about them so I could use those when I wanted to debate a claim someone's making!

...and in the case of the RFID chip, I've seen the congressional PDF dismissed as fake on other blogs and boards. I want to find out what could have been posted that WAS trusted.

a reply to: Byrd

I see what you are getting at here but I'm going to answer anyways. There is no cut and dried method to determine what is and isn't biased. One shouldn't be writing off a source based on the source alone (outside of a few metrics that disqualify their content like tabloid journalism). Even some of the most biased articles on the evil partisan news organization of your choice report factual information much to any of our chagrin.

So one should be reading ALL sources and applying learned critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chafe. Propaganda techniques are actually really easy to recognize when you get good at seeing them. One of the easiest ways to identify much propaganda is to drill into your head the difference between an opinion and a fact. This idea SEEMS intuitive but so many people let opinions = facts these days that it's clear that it isn't as intuitive as one would think. For instance, I can read an article on Huffington Post and immediately know that it is an emotional bs fluff article not worth reading then I can go to Fox news and get the gist of an event by sorting through their facts and emotional appeals. But at the same time I can also find quality HuffPo articles that are factual in nature and emotional fluff articles from Fox News. It's all in how you read them as well as knowing which articles to read.

Heck I mentioned tabloid journalism earlier, you should probably even read some of that. Though you probably won't get very far before you have disproven whatever they are singing if you know what you are doing.

However the wrong answer (and I'm pretty sure the point of your thread was to get people to realize this so I'm preaching to the choir here) is to just write sources off altogether and just say "LOL MSM!"

a reply to: Byrd

It's all case by case.

All "sources" have "credible" and "not credible" points.

There is no single source for everything.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Byrd

It's all case by case.

All "sources" have "credible" and "not credible" points.

There is no single source for everything.

That's what you say, but if you read through threads you find a constant "MSM Lol" going on.

So if you're arguing with someone that their source is not correct, many people here would shut you down with that and not even bother to read because you'd posted a "MSM" or CNN or HuffPo article.

And when they don't read it, you can't say "case by case basis."

Because it's not. It might be "case by case" for an opening post, but it's sure not "case by case" in the discussion.

ATS once had a good reputation for fact checking. We did a few epic takedowns and were mentioned in a very good light by the media.

Nowadays this isn't true, and the barrage of "your response is stupid because you disagreed with me and quoted a USA Today article as proof" has contributed to the decline.

I don't like that we've lost status. That's why I'm asking the question - what sources would people stop (or consider) and read rather than sneering "Oh, you used some sort of mainstream article that disagrees with me"?

I'm not focusing on the OP. I'm focusing on the responses because that's where the bulk of the disgusted remarks about sources (by people who aren't even reading the linked source) come.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Every subject is case by case and there is no "list" of trusted MSM and ASM sources.

All MSM and ASM "sources" have been right and wrong.

footnote: ASM = Alternative Stream Media

Wikileaks fake news free, 10 years strong.

a reply to: Byrd

Then it's all about trust in media, and everyone is different in terms of who they trust.

I don't call Uzbekistan, but if I am arguing a point against the left, I use leftist sources. The left is not going to consider a conservative source as credible. If I am arguing against the Right, I use conservative sources.

I steer away from blogs/dotcoms, unless those sites are well sources themselves.

The best thing is multiple sources, but you're going to get people who will call it fake no matter how accurate the information is.

It really depends on how in-depth you want to make an argument. If I'm going to argue unemployment, I'm going to pull up figures from the BLS website, and I'm going to give a run-down on how they come up with those numbers. Second-hand accounts are not as good as first-hand records.

In the case of RFID chips, I actually read the bill that was being proposed. The language changed for the final draft due to mass criticism. The bill did not state RFID chips anywhere, it did have a clause about implantable type 2 medical devices, Verichip is a type 2 medical device.

For that argument I provided the questionable text for the bill, then I provided the verichip product information calling it type 2 medical device.

There was also an instance, I was doing research in my free-time looking into implantable hearing devices and how they were more beneficial than what we have today. Well, it was interesting at that time, there were claims that the FDA had a ban on it, but lifted the ban and had a list of accepted hearing implants.

I went to the FDA website, and to my surprise, the list was non-existent. There was a section for the hearing device list, but the link was broken. I never did a follow-up, but I do see commercials for implanted hearing devices in recent years.

When it comes to politics, finding information from biased sources is not a good method. Now if you are able to find the same information, from opposing biased sources, then it's best to use both of those sources or more.

You aren't going to please everyone.

a reply to: GodEmperor

How well does your strategy work here on ATS - particularly in political and medical threads where you are making a counter-argument to the original post?

I know that there are some here who do meticulous research - and the researchers generally aren't the ones shouting about how stupid it is to use mainstream sources because they are the ones most likely to concede a point if it's proven or accept valid mainstream material.

To me, the question is how to reach people who are posting (for example) song videos as a response (often mocking) or scoffing at a post simply because it's a mainstream source. If it was from a source they thought was more reliable, they'd engage with the post and write something more than a 5 word sneer.

Heck, I've posted contrarian things on a conservative topic using Fox and other Conservative outlets and still heard the "MSM - lol!" response (or meme images or songs.)

It's those kinds of responses (meme images, songs, three word sneers) that are making us look more like the lunatic fringe than the reliable alternative site we once were. Surely there's sources other than Youtube videos or meme generators that would get people to consider a contrarian viewpoint.

Or are there? Is that something that only dedicated researchers will recognize?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Byrd

I don't trust any news source.

The problem is I don't trust the 'fact' checkers either.

And this is what I'm asking:

When a discussion starts, and fact-checkers step in here at ATS, a lot of times they are shot down with "MSM lies!"

So what source (that maybe debunked the first story) is trustworthy? I want to know if I'm making an argument against something in the article what sources would NOT be met with "MSM LIES!" responses.

And if I decide to post something, what sources look better/more credible?

That is entirely a matter of who is asking for your sources. Remember, "facts" as we once knew them are no longer agreed upon, apparently, and everyone has their source of "truth", everyone elses facts and reality be damned as they say. What will be accepted as fact and a "trusted source" depends on who is looking at it on this site.

When I actually want to determine if something is real or B.S., or try to discern what really happened, I usually end up checking and comparing the story from numerous sources with different viewpoints. First, it helps to know the agenda and bias of any source, their record of getting it right. Compare, contrast.

There are what I consider "neutral" sources. Things like publicly available data, encyclopedias, academic institutions and peer reviewed scientific journals. Direct sources, "straight from the horses mouth" is also good.

In terms of the mainstream media as sources, your best tactic is to look at multiple outlets to see if they are reporting the same thing, and what the source for their information is. When several sides agree on something, its a good indicator you are likely going to find fact and truth.

a reply to: Byrd

I'd tend to agree with xueney, Kshot, and Skaadi on this one, it's all a case by case basis. MSM sources can put out some real gems and some real crap, often right next to each other. Same with the alternative sites. I think it's an almost entirely agenda driven and inherently biased process, due to the human nature that's such a big part of it. Every journalist brings their bias and agenda to the table with them, whether they put it into their work or not.

As to the LOL MSM responses, I'd think it's either poor debating skills, an attempt at dirty debate(dismiss the supporting source offhand), a lack of critical analysis skills, or a firm anti-mainstream media bias.

You might try coming back with an:
LOL your lack of debating skill, or an
LOL your lack of critical analysis skills,
but I guess you could try dumbing it down for your audience if you think that's the only way you'll get through to them. Like you said, just find that special youtube vid or kitty cat meme that pushes their think button. Good luck with that one. You can present people with the facts or your perspective on reality and try to communicate that to the best of your ability, but that's about as good as it gets I think. They will have to decide for themselves whether to critically evaluate the information that you have presented to them or LOL MSM at it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I haven't personally critically evaluated that, but it's a popular saying that is metaphorically applicable.

Also, general reply to the OP:

I like Swann's stuff. I like abovetopsecret.com for story evaluation personally. I've found that usually when I see or hear a story that I want to take a longer look at that someone here on ATS is already busy putting it under the microscope by the time I get here. The sourcing and the story behind the story usually comes out in the wash.

Feb 16, 2017

What's the terminology for describing when a ERROR-RIDDEN media outlet has the gall to fact-check the President, or anyone else for that matter?

USA TODAY Fact Checks Trumps 2/16/2017 Press Conference
www.msn.com...

For me the fact checking is usually as simple as identifying the bias within the articles or in the speech of those reporting.

Someone is writing up these news stories in very creative ways in order to sway public opinion.

Most people aught to be able to discern when their minds or feelings are being herded into a conclusion, the way the story ends is usually pushing people to have a certain feeling about what was said.

The stories seem to use forgone conclusions about many things which are easy to identify as being something they want people to believe, but with no supporting evidence. The words draw absolutes when no facts have really been presented yet, or no evidence to support the conclusions being pushed. Propaganda isn't as effective when people stop trusting the sources and practice really reading the way these "news stories" are built and assembled.

I see this structure in news reporting in every single associated press story in news papers. I have not watched television in 10 years, so I have become "immune" to the BS they push out by the barge load.