What do you think of the status of media in modern society? How much is it involved in directing rather than reporting events? How much does the nonparticipation of people contribute to the perceived partisanship in media?
That takes on a life of its own. We argue about stuff from hundreds of years ago and have no consummate opinion about whats currently happening. Sometimes I think the truth is a retrospective phenomenon.
(obviously I am talking about Europe in the following) It's interesting to see that there is a definite shift from the 70s where the news media partially still had 'ideals', such as reporting the 'truth', and people were expecting the odd angle. The view that would enlighten them of different ways of thinking. This is very notion has disappeared alltogether and it has become the accepted practice by both the media and the public that news is propaganda. The public wants the media to tell them what to think, and there should never be more than two options. Which makes debating with your friends so much easier.
But if everyone has so little faith in the news, what purpose does it serve anymore? To just bombard us with their viewpoint until we start believing it? How do you distinguish the truth from the glut? Is there any merit to the notion of using the scientific method for filtering the news?
I don't believe that. Everybody has all the faith in the world in the news. It's just you and me who don't. And maybe richard dawkins.
The only option is to read all news from all sources and all viewpoints and try and figure out the truth. Except a days news will take a lifetime to analyse....
The MEDIA are nothing but liying pieces of crap. They don't care who they hurt , injure or kill if they tell their stories about the "news". They fabricate the stories for the most part and leave out many important details when they "report". Vultures.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
disagree. Don't read the news. It's not worth it. Find other sources of information. Information that is useful. News consists mainly of items on unimportant things any way.
I have to agree somewhat with Spurious ....I don't believe they have so little faith in the news. And as "proof", look at how we are here at sciforums ....a news item finds it's way here in the blink of an eye. Especially if it's sensationalist news. I use the old, tried and true method ....don't react at all to the news, just wait a few days and see if it's still a news item. It usually ain't, so what does that tell you about how important it was? I firmly believe that if Africa sank beneath the ocean, it would be forgotten in a few days, maybe just a few weeks. If India simply disappeared, since we get almost no news from India anyway, we might not even know it for weeks! News? Ya' want to know how to judge the news? Just don't react at all on it for, say, a week. Then see what's finally happened or proven or whatever. We're whores for sensationalism, nothing more, nothing less. Baron Max
personally I only bother with fiction, history books and science (popular and peer-reviewed). They all give more insight into our world than news.
I eat my news directly from Reuters before the BBC can inject its Happy serums and carcinogens. Top story with me today: Cockroaches don't like mornings (actually, it's yesterday's but never mind..).
