Farcevalue wrote:Has anyone else here wondered about the logical contradictions involved with citing ANY media sources as factual? I frequently hear people in conversations referring to incidents with which they have absolutely no personal first hand personal knowledge as if they are certain they are true. While it is easy enough to expose contradictions where images and grammar are in conflict, how can we then point to another story and cite that one as factual?
There are reports that in some cases may include documentation that can be verified, but short of obtaining those records ourselves, how do we know they exist? Since we live in a world that is filled with irrationality, lies, obfuscation and manipulation that generates an ever widening feedback loop as "useful idiots" repeat the disinfo, I have a sense that the world is being lost to a Gordian knotted, house of mirrors style information web that will be impossible to unravel.
Or I just noticed what has always been happening.
There seems to be a growing trend in the MSM, whereby a disclaimer is added to certain reports(usually concerning ones from the middle-east and usually the ones containing the piss-poor Playstation 2 footage of alleged riots/protests/bombings/murders etc). This disclaimer is usually 'We cannot verify this report'.
Maybe these instances are a little clue being left for the more discerning viewer, or the poor, downtrodden news corporations
are saying, 'Please don't shoot the messenger!'
Maybe that's the eternal optimist buried deeply within me, rearing it's pretty little head!
I find the whole of the MSM hilarious these days as practically no-one I know or work with ever talks about the news any more so what's the point? Or maybe they don't discuss it front of me nowadays to avoid my usual reaction!?