Do you really trust the MSM?

I find it highly ironic that 98% of the threads on here link to MSM sources and yet I always hear ATS members yelling at people who trust these companies' sources.

Do you trust the MSM? If not, then why do you post links to the stories backing up your posts? I know many people who break down the articles posted on this site line by line and that is awesome! Thumbs up to you guys!! If you truly didn't trust the MSM, you wouldn't post articles from the MSM giving them more hits on their websites and giving them more money in advertising money ....

Because after all, without the MSM there would be no ATS.

Thoughts?

Personally, I do actually trust the msm. The stories they generally cover are researched out enough to paint at least one functional picture.

My personal issue with the msm is that they never really discuss the full picture. But more importantly, they ignore lots of far more important subject and replace it with inconsequencial fluff.

Thats the news...now going to the commentary (popular in cable news) and you will get little more than a completely skewed view of reality based on their demographic tailoring...that is brain rot stuff.

But sure...they tell the general truth...typically on unimportant stuff, and ignore the profound stuff people need to know.
Saying what the districts report, for instance, in the republican caucus is what the msm is doing...what they need to be doing is investigating the allegations of fraud...anyone can spout out the numbers, we need investigative reporters to actually get the news behind the event verses just the event.

Isn't it funny?
Ironic maybe?
Education somebody?
Schooling lost it.
Lets listen to these acting anchors drown us with babble and sink with our fear.
Lets not love or care about one another, lets be afraid of everything.
The news' biggest tool is emotional manipulation.
The medias biggest tool is your fear of living.
Overload of information gives you no time to process or understand it fully.
It's misdirection at its finest.
More distraction in our search for truth.
And we've all fallen for it.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Hell no! they repetitively prove themselves to have no journalistic integrity and operate only to control public opinion. What scum...

reply to post by jjf3rd77

I think there is a healthy mix of alternative sources too, but I get your point. There is still grains of truth within much of the sensationalized fluff, and often we have to connect our own dots for a clearer picture. This is why I like ATS, because things get run through the mill here, for better and worse, but more often better imo.
Other than that trust plays a part, and I imagine many of us still have certain reporters we trust to some degree. Mine are Judge Napolotino, Bill Moyers, Naomi Klein and Jon Stewart(I know, I know funny....but still)

Peace,
spec

I personally don't trust any of them. That doesn't mean they don't report some truth, just their truth.

On this site, especially in the Anti-Israel/America vs. the Anti-Iranian debates. One side sites a certain media source and the other automatically claims it Zionist propaganda/Anti Semetic propaganda.

Both sides only seem to like media stories when they are used in support of their respective sides.

I trust all the MSM only a little bit. I trust a few of them even less. I prefer to look at multiple sources and find all I can find on a subject. Here at ATS is but one of those sources, but it is a good source for fresh ideas and also to keep abreast of events.
I have found that compared to say 5 different MSMs the truth is usually somewhere in between the left and the right. One must read between the lines and when watching on TV it is always best to shut it off and go online making comparisons.
In other words. I trust none of them, and believe a thing only after I have verified it through several sources.
MSM has but one goal. To Make Money. On TV, they will do their best to captivate you so that you will watch their broadcast of 7 minutes followed by 6 minutes of commercials. You will see what they want you to see. Hear what they want you to hear, and if there were such a thing as smellavision they would make a sewer smell like a T-bone stake rare on the grill. Yum Yum. I haven't watched a mainstream News Cast on TV since 9/11 and I have no intention of doing so in the future.
On the net I can go around the world comparing aljazeera and compare middle east news from that view to RT followed by CNN, Drudge, Fox, and the Jerusalem Post. Even the Wall street Journal.
I often go to China News casts, and even Japan broadcasts. Odd how each one of them are biased in their own ways. Using just one of them is a matter of concern as you would never get the whole truth.
Nice Post.
DH

Every source is biased. So long as you recognize you're reading bias of some sort, you're already ahead of the game and doing as well as anyone else can claim. The only issue is- I kind of like to know what their biases are- and I'm not always good at figuring them out. I try to negate being unduly influenced in any one direction by reading a variety of sources. I don't watch T.V. (and haven't in a few years) but I'll tell you the times I've tuned in recently have been jarring.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I find it highly ironic that 98% of the threads on here link to MSM sources and yet I always hear ATS members yelling at people who trust these companies' sources.

Do you trust the MSM? If not, then why do you post links to the stories backing up your posts? I know many people who break down the articles posted on this site line by line and that is awesome! Thumbs up to you guys!! If you truly didn't trust the MSM, you wouldn't post articles from the MSM giving them more hits on their websites and giving them more money in advertising money ....

Because after all, without the MSM there would be no ATS.

I can see your perspective clearly, and the subtle humor is not wasted on me....,

Not be a wet blanket though; the irony is only half-met.

ATS is among the most driven of internet communities. As a result, our collective expository standard has engendered an interesting paradigm. Which is a fancy way of saying I think ATS is different, and in some senses, unique. (After all you're here. )

The "Main Stream Media" (MSM) is, in effect, the reason for many of the member-contribution gems we often find here on ATS. That does not make them 'responsible' for it.

Perhaps if they were not so tragically trapped in a "commercial production" paradigm of there own, they would engage in actual journalism as a matter principle... true reporters engaging in investigative journalism is quite the rarity today. Don't mistake this as a criticism of journalists in general, as the flaw is virtually systemic.

But rather than digressing on the flaws of MSM's "product." I wanted to say that in a display of synchronous irony, the answer to your question is "Yes, I do trust the MSM; but not necessarily to tell the truth."

"News" used to be reported. Now it's produced. As a result, it is more often than not corrupted.

But even in a corrupt message, we can learn. As people, in general, we are truly no where near as stupid as the relatively recent 'cultural narrative' has led us to believe. We may be ignorant, but given the requisite information, we tend to overcome most obstacles. I think it may be safe to say it's part of denying ignorance... and it has a cost which cannot be avoided.

So yes, often we mock the MSM, we eschew their vacuous presentations, or marvel at their ability to utterly destroy the ideal their profession used to embrace. Their "craft" (which has, at beast, devolved from its ideal - to gross incompetence; and at worst, to pure propaganda) damages the story; we confront that as part of denying ignorance.

More irony; if they reported accurately in an unbiased and meaningful manner - we would likely not need to present their facts, stripped of pretension, and we would be free to simply discuss the ramifications and application of the information they convey.

The opportunity to share the perfect contrast of what the MSM delivers and what we would want, is often to tempting to pass up. Schadenfreude has its allure.

Nevertheless most of the content on this site, I suspect, is original; the proportion of members' contributions to the occasional cited quote must certainly heavily favor originality. This is why self-congratulatory or vapid dialog meant to coddle childish egos and e-hooliganism is shunned by the members. This is what makes us able to discuss the MSM's frequent folly, or failure to fully hash out a story (probably because they cling to the idea that "we" - you and I, are too stupid to want, let alone need, the whole story, without their annoying tendency to speak down to us.)

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Trust? Of course not, they are owned by the money and control group, we hear what they want us to hear for further control. I am still steamed at the report last night of the underwear bomber, what a whitewash and cover up. I may watch it once a month just to affirm my views and I am not let down yet.

Of course I don't trust the MSM...why trust a group that carefully edits the news so as not to offend corporate sponsors? And yes, even in the alternative media there is a bias...but as a previous poster pointed out, knowing that going in DOES put one ahead of the game. Besides, my faith in the MSM completely eroded when, back in 2001, shortly after 9/11, Howdy Doody..err, King George II...said "let us not tolerate any conspiracy theories" and the media lapped it up and Amen! (when the Official Fairy Tale was as yet an unproved conspiracy theory..:lol

Just my two cents