Why are conspiracy theory skeptics, not skeptical of the Controlled Mass Media's accepted versions

Why are Skeptics of any alternate possibilities not skeptical of everything? I just don't understand the hard core

skeptic who is only skeptical of anything that varies from what the government or the media feeds them.

Are these people somehow hypnotised by chemtrails or fluoride to believe whatever they see on TV?


What is the deal?

reply to post by CyberTruth


I would say so. Now a days I question everything - period. The track record on lies and deception through media and government is just too horrible. I always look at every news source on any story, collaborate and conclude things myself.

Because they 100% believe whatever the authorities tell them is the truth. And by insulting and attacking those who dare to question it, it makes them feel superior.

reply to post by CyberTruth


As the Great Thesbian Once Said .................All The World's a Stage.................And we are but Bit Players Banished to the Audience for the Amusement of the Whimsical Charlatans Who Lord It All Over US........

i297.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas
reply to post by CyberTruth

 

I would say so. Now a days I question everything - period. The track record on lies and deception through media and government is just too horrible. I always look at every news source on any story, collaborate and conclude things myself.

Just because you do doesn't mean everyone else does...

reply to post by CyberTruth


Dude people on this site are such hypocrites. First they say the "MSM" is controlled by the govt. but if you provide info. from an alternative source they say it's not credible. I agree with your thread. I get very frustrated.

If I were skeptical of everything, I'd not be able to get out of bed in the mornings.
Or I'd be so paranoid I'd end up tin-foiling the house, searching for bugs in my coffee, or locking it shut, and the like.

The MSM if you have not noticed over the past few disasters, has not exactly been on the ball or even on the level when it comes to getting their facts right.

However, if you are referring to the events of the capture, and how the media finally balanced its keel at the end; I would have to say folks slapped them around a bit. Mostly due to how wrong they got some of the big things.

However, when they get there crap together and stick to facts, they do 'ok'.

Yet, there are a lot of things that are back burnered or left unsaid, or just plain ignored. Fukushima, Syria, Gaza, Libya etc, should be in the forefront of the news, as our money is going there... or they have a direct effect on our lives.

There is a Corporate Mandate or at least the semblance of one. At last reporting (IIRC) there are three media empires controlling all of the newspapers, radios and television. Some are left wing leaning, others right... and a small dabble of centrist. Then you have a few that are just plain skitzo in how they seem to operate.

The truth, is the truth; no matter if the MSM gets it right for a change.

Or not.

I'm not going to rehash all of the things I've said about the past week.
If you want my views you can search ATS for them, or send me a pm.
However, the MSM consensus is pretty close to events that happened on the police scanners.

M.

reply to post by CyberTruth



Skeptics worship at the feet of authority; the false gods of conformity and religion.

Their personality profiles them as people that would turn on the TV to CNN rather than look out the window if someone said "it's raining"

That's a great question.

[color=#acacac]# Let us label the main stream media by M.[color=#acacac]
# Let us also define a function which we'll call, P.
P(A, [T]) —> Subject A reports on the set of topics, T
[color=#acacac]# Finally, let us define a set of ‘topics’, S
[X, Y, Z] ∈ S
# [color=#acacac]examples §.
# you can think of it like this:
[color=#8b8b8b]# you turn on channel 47 and see:
P( [color=Turquoise]CNN, [ Bombing at the Boston Marathon, [color=#ff2101]Terrorism, [color=#ed3031]Suspect In Custody ])
[color=#8b8b8b]# you tune the radio to 101.5 FM and hear:
P( [color=#ee7700]AP Radio News, [ [color=#54abfe]Explosion near Waco, TX, [color=#afd907]Explosion Probably Just A Big Screw-up ])
[color=#8b8b8b]# you open the morning newspaper:
P( Huffington Post, [ Gun Spontaneously Kills Owner; NYPD: ‘Baffled’, [color=#de77a1]Guns Are Evil ])

§ People are bombarded 24/7 with these messages, practically starting from birth.


*Now, what all that allows us to do,
is look at the bare-bones abstract structure of the matter at hand.

What is occuring, essentially, is syllogistically fallacious reasoning:

[color=#8b8b8b]if P(M, [X,Y]) = [color=#4822ef]true
[color=#8b8b8b]then —> P(M, [Z]) [color=ed1033]= true [color=#8b8b8b] # WRONG!

It is the [color=ed1033]last part of which that precisely encompasses the aforementioned mental malfunction.

That is the (faulty) inductive reasoning process which is taking place.

Understand the basic equations
(who, what, when, where, and how),
and then from that you can often easily deduce why~

~E.C.

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Ummmm....can u repeat that? (start from the x= part please. )

Originally posted by billy565
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

Ummmm....can u repeat that? (start from the x= part please. )

O.o Nooooooooooooo!

I don't believe everything the MSM says, either.

But if your explanation depends on aliens, totally incorrect physics, or PROOF!!!11!!! that isn't, then no, I don't believe you.

reply to post by CyberTruth


I don't watch tv.

I don't have chemtrails over my head.

I don't have fluoride in my water.

And I don't like the MSM.

So yeah...

reply to post by olaru12


Ha! Silly skeptics!

Wait... I don't get CNN, what on earth do I do then?

reply to post by CyberTruth


Blue pill dude, blue pill !

I don´t know much about US media channels.

Although I know quite a bit about media here. There is no "conspiracy" surronding it and it is not controlled.

The reporters have clear hands to write. Although they are required to have proof behind what they say, as if they deal with some known public figures, they might be sued if no proof behind what they say. Even alternative science news can not be taken seriously before they are proved. Without any scientific documents, the theory can not be taken seriously and that would mean losing some of the scientific audience. Even if somebody invented a perpertum mobile, they would have to wait for proof before publishing anything. Although the news in TV have shown different free energy solutions and had university professors investigate them.

I know several people working in the biggest local news portal or some reporters in newspapers . They have no restrictions, except the need to have proof behind them. If even a witness would come up and say opposite to the official documents, they would be heard. Although simply suggesting false flag or government cover-up would mean 1) a huge scandal. 2) If otherwise is proven the newspaper will be bankrupted by the lawsuits. Overally better newspapers try to be as objective as possible, so suggesting solutions is normal, although suggesting a problem, which might not exist, is not objective.

With certain topics there is no other way to find proof than investigating yourself and in some cases it can be very dangerous, so many reporters prefer otherwise.

Also anybody is allowed to make an article to earn some money. There is a corner for it. There have been 9/11 cover-up topics, global warming hoax, freemasons conspiracy topics, many local conspiracy topics. And these lots of views as it is the largest news local news portal.

To be honest, even the national media has shown different conspiracy movies, All 3 Zeitgeist movies have been shown, also about the Banking crash etc.

All the gore pictures used and victims shown is not about propaganda, it is about money. Emotions sell, whether positive or negative. The more emotional topics, the more viewers it gets. Same is with words taken out context. It sells.

generalising. there are variety of opinions on here.

The MSM does screw things up on occasion when rushing to be the first to get a story but, they just say uncomfirmed reports to cover their butts. Of course when you have three 24 hour news channels, 3 major networks news organizations, thousands of local news organizations, hundreds of news paper reporters, radio news reporter and magazine news reporters not to mention web based news organizations the rush to get the story first causes mistakes. Of course nobody could control all those groups and all of them would like to be the one to break some big story. They also tend to sensationalize stories to get eye balls something ATS posters love to do. And they spend time on celebrities or silly stories instead of more important less sexy stories. Some of them have a political slant one way or the other which can taint stories at times. On the plus side the MSM has a thousand other news organizations just waiting for them to screw something up so the can pounce on them. That helps keep them in line. I recall that among higher levels of gov CNN was known as the Classified News Network because so often would information they should not however, sometimes we would watch and laugh because they were completely off base.

reply to post by MrSpad


After seeing Conan's skit exposing local media it would seem all of these news stories

are coming from one source which seems very scarily controlled to me.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by CyberTruth

 

Skeptics worship at the feet of authority; the false gods of conformity and religion.

Their personality profiles them as people that would turn on the TV to CNN rather than look out the window if someone said "it's raining"

Naw, us skeptics do not believe the media is godlike. They have an agenda but its localized to their profit margin not some grand conspiracy to sway public opinion one way or the other.

Its funny that is much as people claim the media is controlling the country they can never bring up any proof. Given the fact that there are extreme varying views on every single issue the idea of mass media control is completely and thouroughly debunked.