General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't trust the major TV networks....
Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:14 AM - Edit history (2)
edited to add the caption on the FB page: Learning to think critically is far more important than simply rejecting the mainstream. If you don't have critical thinking skills, you're just choosing a different source to be manipulated by.
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)put the Trumpster at the head of the Republican ticket!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)It is exactly what the First Amendment cases talk about--a marketplace of ideas, through which we can sift.
Unfortunately--and this the First Amendment never contemplated--most of the larger news outlets are controlled by 5 to 7 mega corporations and the public outlets that you like are not independent of government.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Mainstream media, mainstream info.
(mainstream = establishmentarian)
merrily
(45,251 posts)The Koch brothers were instrumental in the resounding success of the Democratic Leadership Council. Donated, sat on the Executive Council. Booyah!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and it's just wrong to paint the GOP as innocent. They did this to themselves and to the country.
merrily
(45,251 posts)They also do all they can to dumb us down.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)thinking that there is no bias or agenda in them than it is praise of the networks.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to be manipulated by.
merrily
(45,251 posts)at all. The amount of slanting they do is staggering. So is the uniformity of their message. Someone without critical thinking skills would not spot any of that. However, if they watch 50 different you tube videos, they would, if nothing else, at least be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Variety of viewpoints untarnished by any requirements to be accurate in the claims they make.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't know what you hoped a post like that would accomplish, but, if you have to resort to making up silly stuff, clearly you don't have much more to say to me on this topic that is worth my reading. Enjoy your day.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Critical thinking means way more than just rejecting establishment lies.
It means that you also apply it to any other source, no matter if there is "more variety" of lies and biases.
Just because they aren't journalists held to a standard of accuracy doesn't mean they are credible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Anyone remember the networks helping Bushco run up to the Iraq War?
How about when every Sunday talking head show had a panicky Paulson urging that Congress pass the bailout the next day?
Yeah, I don't want to hear anyone on youtube or a message board giving me the arguments against any of that shet.
Sorry, I have to wonder about that cartoonist.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and the foil hats that rely on youtube.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think a criticism of A is equitable to praise of B (which is actually a logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad consequentiam').
merrily
(45,251 posts)Perhaps you could give me a direct quote the words I used to claim one was the equivalent of the other?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It is about people who won't apply the same critical thought to youTube channels that they do to Network Television.
Javaman
(62,444 posts)Amy Goodman is my main source of new.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which is proof not everything that has an editorial process is tainted by the establishment.
merrily
(45,251 posts)While you're at it, please remind me where I said everything that airs anywhere has an establishment bias? Or anything remotely like that?
As far as "random," I have no clue what you are talking about.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you don't have critical thinking skills, you're just choosing a different source to be manipulated by.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...thinking people out there who suspend their critical thinking for youtube personalities. I'm just as skeptical/cynical of youtubers as I am about any other source of opinion or information.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)both here and on facebook, that consist of someone on youtube ranting.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What specifically leads you perceive outrage?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Everything gets seen through our own subjective eyes. Two people can agree(as long as they speak the same language, and have the same number system, etc) that there are 3 rocks in front of them. That's a fact. Where the trouble starts is those same people can think of different reasons why there are only 3 rocks. Why shouldn't there be 2? Why can't there be 4? Who decided on 3? What were their motives? Was there anyone that decided on it? Is it 3 because it's always been 3? Or is it 3 because that's just how it randomly happened? Should we allow 3? Should only 1 rock be legal? Should we take the rocks? Can we take the rocks? Do they already belong to someone else? What if they come around looking for their stuff? If we take the rocks, should we both get 1.5 rocks? If I carry 2, should I get to keep 2? One of the rocks is bigger than the other 2, so what does that mean?
Now multiply that by a few billion people, and we can see why we can't agree on much.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)REEEEALLLLY wanted it to be four rocks. That's critical thought.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)ffr
(22,649 posts)So you can trust them to that.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)...fund a small civil war just to spend on a deceptive 30 second piece."
Well, now that that's cleared up. Here's a hint: If you're drawing your philosophy from meme pictures, you're already under someone else's influence. Have a nice day.