50 companies produced 90% of the media and news in 1983

6 companies produced 90% of the media and news in 2011

I don't see a problem

I totally see the potential problems with that, but I want to know about specific problems. Tell me about specific instances when the media has been influenced by these controlling factions, what they used it for, and what the evidence was that they were manipulating it. That's what I'm asking for, sorry for being unclear. And thanks for responding.

"We have never been at war with Eastasia."

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Looking into that returned a whole flood, thanks very much for this. I can't believe how often they try and do that... "the plan was never 'stay the course'". I mean, really? Anyways, I'm going to keep looking at this, thanks again for your help in pointing me in the right direction.

[deleted]

Thanks for the support man, the hivemind was really getting to me. I was starting to think it actually was crazy to be skeptical of the news.

The way the news works- they believe things, and then they find a way to communicate that belief where it's palatable for the people whom the belief is based on.

In other words- the people who own the news think of their audience as cattle on a massive slaughter-house ranch, and rather than tell everyone this and rock the boat.. they just sorta use subliminal patronizing to make the whole thing an inside joke. The people who make the news all sit back and laugh at their own audiences for actually watching their acting. It's like professional wrestling- all fake.

Haters gonna hate. Haters love to attack in swarms too, and they always converge on one single target in the minimal time-span possible, like a flash mob. They're just jealous that /r/conspiracy has 96k subscribers (more than their bullshit sub-reddits will ever get).

Us conspiracy theory empathizers will always have each other to fall back on, even as the world gets progressively more inhospitable in every conceivable fashion imaginable.

Am 46 and looking back on life there are countless times the news is wrong and or handing out partial truths. What is the best predictor of future behavior , past behavior of course.

So then, do you think that they were handing out partial truths because they were pressured by the government/CEOs, or because they made a mistake and got it wrong? Because the overwhelming majority of the messages I'm getting say that when false news is reported, it's because of a 'mistake' of some sort. So I want to know if that's what you believe, and if it's not what you believe, what makes you think that it was pressure from suits/whoever?

Thank you for actually answering the question I was asking.

here's a good vid that should clear up what you think about those "mistakes". watch it a few times if it doesn't click with you right away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol49XIgMWDA

that guy is an anchor on MSNBC. look at what a terrible liar he is.

Dear God what an incredibly dangerous person. I've often thought to myself in my life that some of the most dangerous people to be around are people that are too dismissive - because being dismissive is both very stupid and complacent in its own way.

That is one profoundly stupid person.

It can be easily derived from his comments that, because of the FACT that powerful, influential people get together and make plans, and that stupidity explains a lot, that powerful influential people are simply stupid. Because stupidity explains the tangible effects that powerful influential people place on the rest of us. That's not even a stretch.

Wow.

yeah, a dangerous and stupid liar. he can't even keep his story straight. he says he's heard of the club where world leaders get together, hang out naked, and perform weird owl rituals - he acknowledges it exists, and says that it's "nothing" - but then he doesn't recognize the comparatively public, 58-year old "Bilderberg Group" meetings, which have their own website, with the mountains of footage of top-level politicians in it, floating around on YouTube.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/BernankeLeavingBilderberg2008.jpg

so horrible that these people are actually the news anchors for the entire U.S.. that guy would slit his own mother's throat for a thousand dollars and some TV airtime.

too much double-think in here especially by OP.

Got any specific incidences you'd care to cite, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Yeah you.....

Oh, I also get points since mine rhymed. :P

i up-boated you.....lol

You too now, free karma!

Alright, since no one provided me with any evidence, and everyone felt the need to argue with me, I guess that all the messages I got were right, and the media really isn't being manipulated. I seriously thought that was a more widely-held opinion, it's pretty crazy to find out everyone believes the news when you thought no one did.

try asking for evidence in the title or text of your post. or, better yet, instead of asking everyone else to do your work for you, search /r/conspiracy for one of the fifteen thousand posts discussing this exact issue, by searching for the word "media", restricted to /r/conspiracy.

huge amounts of media is owned by 6 companies, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, we have issues like how the author of the PATRIOT Act is on the board of News Corp, the media sympathizes with the government/corporate structure when pitted against the people, basically without exception (see Occupy Wall Street), the media unquestioningly rehashes the government's war narratives (see "War on Terror"), the media virtually never discusses any form of pollution that the government isn't planning to tax out of existence, and the media pumps Americans full of news about sociopathic celebrities to distract them from the parasitic and exploitative roles that they and their society play in the world. the media treats all government programs as sacrosanct, with a few small exceptions designed to pit people against each other, and the media glorifies the role of the "police officer", which in reality is nothing more than a glorified thug - much like it glorifies the role of the "soldier". that's not just the news, it's also TV shows - many movies (see "Hurt Locker", etc.) depend completely on funding and equipment from the military, and compromise their integrity in line with that. the few movies that glorify the struggle of the people against the system tend to be made in foreign countries, or in the underground of the U.S., because the people who manage the media in the U.S. are uninterested in airing any information about the dissent to the system they make so much money off of.

good enough?

try asking for evidence in the title or text of your post. or, better yet, instead of asking everyone else to do your work for you, search /r/conspiracy[1] for one of the fifteen thousand posts discussing this exact issue, by searching for the word "media", restricted to /r/conspiracy[2] .

That doesn't give me any rock-solid proof, which is what I'm asking for. I don't need other people to do my work for me, I'm asking if anyone knows offhand about any undeniable cases of media manipulation in the U.S., particularly with major media outlets.

I know all the problems with how they misrepresent things like OWS, and how they're all controlled by the same people, but that doesn't actually prove that those people are doing anything messed up. In the argument I was having in another thread, the other person kept saying that any time that happened, it was a mistake. So I'm basically looking for rock-solid proof that it wasn't a mistake, at least one time. If there isn't any rock-solid proof at all that it hasn't just been a mistake any time something has been mis-reported, then that means I have to adjust my stance. I thought I was basing it on cold hard facts, like, X cover-ups have been revealed in the last X years, but I can't seem to find the things I used to use as examples any more. So I'm asking if you guys know of any.

What would you say to a critic to prove to them conclusively about... any conspiracy really, to prove to them that conspiracies have happened in the last decade or two, outside of North Korea and China. That's what I need, because I'm playing the devil's advocate here.

if you don't think the media's treatment of OWS was "rock solid proof" of media corruption, then i think you need to revise what you consider "rock solid proof".

I read the petty argument and the reality is you've missed the point.

You adopted the position that the 'TV' always lies, ie: literally everything on TV is a lie, which is self-evidently false.

Here's the relevant part you seemed to have missed:

But the part where you are essentially equating all other forms of media in the US with North Korean State News is, frankly, lobotomy-level idiot stuff

'bork...' wasn't arguing that 'the news is infallible' as you suggest in your title, he was arguing against your implication that TV news in the US is equivalent to TV news in North Korea, which is obviously a false-equivalence.

Its passe to point this out on reddit but OP has posted a strawman here - downvoting accordingly.

You adopted the position that the 'TV' always lies, ie: literally everything on TV is a lie, which is self-evidently false.

I didn't say that anywhere. What I said is that T.V. should always be questioned. I still fail to see the problem with that.

Before responding, if you really think I was saying that, then quote where I said that T.V. always lies, or implied it.

And I didn't equate the news in the U.S. with the news in North Korea, I said that North Koreans are certain that their news is uncensored even though it isn't, so it's foolish to make the assumption that our news is uncensored based on how it's "incredibly difficult" to censor something like the news. That doesn't mean I said our news was censored, it means to assume a source of information is flawless simply because you aren't hearing competing arguments is a flawed methodology.

so it's foolish to make the assumption that our news is uncensored based on how it's "incredibly difficult" to censor something like the news.

The implication here is that A) everything on TV is to some degree censured or false and B) the false assumption that myself and 'bork...' are arguing that everything on TV is absolute truth.

You responded to something that is evidently true and made an obvious implication that it was actually false and backed it up with nothing more than implying 'everything on TV is (or could be) a lie'. This is the argument you were making, hence why you got downvoted and what 'bork...' took issue with.

'everything on TV is (or could be) a lie'.

There, that's close enough. What I was saying is that everything on T.V. could be a lie, so it should be viewed with skepticism. If North Koreans had that simple of a change in their mentality, how different would the world be? If they allowed for simply the possibility that what they were viewing wasn't absolute fact? For the love of god, can someone tell me what is wrong with that sentence, right there:

"It could be a lie, so it should be viewed with skepticism."

Seriously, tell me what's wrong with that way of thinking.

And I never said it was false, I said it could be false, which is absolutely true. And since it's true, I'm confused about why everyone is arguing the point. It's like arguing that we are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not in the Matrix. There's no way to know for sure, so why say that it's absolutely, 100% certain that we aren't? Why not just say, 'we probably aren't'?

As it is, that guy has yet to say that there's even the slightest chance that anything on the news could be purposefully misrepresented. I'm pretty damn sure that there's a chance. And he's completely unwilling to admit that there's even the slimmest chance of that. That's what we're arguing. Me saying that there's a chance that something he sees on the news is a lie is radically different from me saying everything on television is a lie, which is why you can't quote a place where I said that. You are misrepresenting what I said.

OK, I'll genuinely try and break this down for you:

OP posts evidently and objectively true statement.

You disagree with this statement, arguing that 'everything on TV is/could be a lie' (you back-peddled a bit on this but for the sake of the argument...)

Its pointed out to you that this is a fallacious (read: shitty) argument and I'll expand on this - you're essentially saying 'the news lied once therefore the news is (probably) all lies'; a logical fallacy.

You've misunderstood this as people arguing that 'the news is always true' (which would be another fallacy), either that or you're knowingly arguing a strawman for the hell of it.

You disagree with this statement, arguing that 'everything on TV is/could be a lie'

I didn't back-peddle, I literally never said everything on T.V. was a lie. But again, feel free to quote wherever you think I said that. I said that I believed that things on T.V. had the potential to be lies, and what I got in response from the original person I was arguing with was, 'it's all true, except when someone (rarely) makes a mistake, but there are never cover ups, and the media isn't controlled by corporations/governments at all'. Since then he's edited the comment, but that was extremely close to exactly what he said. And that's what I was arguing with, since I didn't believe that.

The fact that you're bullshitting is apparent from this right here;

You adopted the position that the 'TV' always lies, ie: literally everything on TV is a lie, which is self-evidently false.

Yeah, except for the fact that I've never thought that everything on T.V. is a lie, so I would obviously never say that I think "literally everything on TV is a lie". Since it's not what I believe. So right here, we have proof of the fact that you're lying, again, and misrepresenting what I said.

You're claiming I said something completely out of character, I'm claiming that I didn't, it's clear who's lying.

You've edited your posts multiple times to backpeddle to the 'i'm just asking questions' position. It's rather cowardly of you.

Like I said, anyone can view the cache. :)

your implication that TV news in the US is equivalent to TV news in North Korea, which is obviously a false-equivalence.

You are just the type of brainwashed, close minded fool OP is talking about. Have you been to North Korea or observed their media at all? Doubt it. Yet you recited the pledge of allegiance almost daily for years without giving thought to what you are saying or the fact that it is a form of propaganda.

Open your eyes to the real world. The real world involves aliens and a society built on lies. An earth that isn't as we learn in geology, and a solar system that is not otherwise unoccupied. They are slowly brainwashing us to get used to the idea and will unveil the truth soon. Oh yeah, also flouride in the water and chemtrails.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerfuel thing.

If this person would admit that the Mainstream Media is lying,they must accept also that the Mainstream Media lied on other Event's like WMD,9/11...

EDIT: i did not meant OP, i mean the general public.

You don't understand cognitive dissonance. If they were suffering from it, they would be able to admit the news lied, but would also be able to hold the view that the news was trying to help them, without issue.

At this point I can't see how the person in question is holding to polar views at all.

"The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold." "

Wiki definition

This exact what is going on.

You can argue if todays Society also suffers under Stockholm Syndrome.

EDIT: i did not meant OP, i mean the general public.

But they're even crazier than I am if they think that no one in the news has ever lied, ever. I mean, whut? How could anyone, much less the majority of Redditors, possibly think that the news is 100% reliable, when there's stuff on the front page about NSA whistleblowers and Ron Paul not getting fair media coverage and Obama covering up the whole Libya thing and Fox lying (all the time) like every day?

It's like they're thinking two things that are opposites, simultaneously. My head hurts.

The Mainstream Media does basically Mind Control

Alan Watt explains this very good.

It looks like you are new here to /r/conspiracy there are groups in power which want to establish a certain agenda (New World Order).

This can't be done if you have a informed public.

There are only 5 Major Corporations which control the US Media.

I am new, and if you can actually tell me stuff, I am totally down to sit here and listen.

So, who are these groups, what do they want this New World Order for? What is the plan anyways?

I have too many friends who have lived in scary places like China, Russia and North Korea to think that governments can actually be benevolent, so the "keep the public stupid" thing is definitely something I can see happening easily. Frankly, I'm just surprised that it works so damn well.

I saw an infographic about the news thing, totally creeped me out, do you have it on your computer or do you know which 5 companies it was again? And do you know who controls them, or what they want?

I'm here to learn :)

The New World Order is the Agenda of a World Goverment,World Army,World Central bank etc.

If a New World Order is established they want reduce the World Population to 500 million - 2 billion depends on which source you look at.

"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a New World Order." -Adolf Hitler

They are beliving in Eugenics and Depopulation.

Adolf Hitler was big into this, he adopted Eugenics from the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

This is the New World Order Agenda in a nutshell.

This Agenda is established by different Poltical Groups/Secret Society's.

The major Secret Society's Today are Bilderberg,Bohemian Grove,Skull & Bones and Freemansonry.

All major Politicans,Big Industry,Media,Presidents are funded or itself Members in these Groups.

John F. Kennedy did a Speech about these Secret Society's (A real President).

The Politics Agenda is set behind closed doors or groups like the CFR,Trilateral commission, United Nations (Which inself is a stepping stone to World Goverment).

Also Rockefeller Foundation,Ford Foundation,Carnegie foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are ools to set the Agenda.

The Rockefeller Family and Rothschild Family are the major Family's behind, who really know what they are doing.

Most of the People in this Conspiracy are compartmentalized or are greedy for money.

Sounds Crazy? Yes it is.

Don't believe me make your own research and find out yourself that these Secret Society are existing and control the World.

"Truth is Stranger than Fiction." -Mark Twain

If you have Questions ask.

Yeah bro ask him. He won't lie to you like the news does. You can trust him, he's an internet stranger!

After he tells me what he believes, I'll do what I usually do, which is do research on my own, and try to read a bunch of conflicting opinions, to get a better picture. Just because I'll listen doesn't mean I'll believe without fact checking.

Why argue with the Elliot Carvers of the world?

I'm not sure what this is all about but I will say that if you're offering a premise, it is your burden to prove, not ours to disprove.

Or is this a case that's like the whistleblower protection laws that were used to give people the protection and perceived security to come forward. When, as it turns out, they are only used as a feedback mechanism to reveal flaws not seen by regulators or oversight groups.

fun with google: Richard Grove dyncorp Marsh & McClellan* Project Constellation

So I'm not sure why you seek to do battle with media skeptics on purely natural, curious grounds. To me, you're just a sophisticated troll, who started an illogically perceived debate. The sad thing is how how many fell for it.

I'm not sure what this is all about but I will say that if you're offering a premise, it is your burden to prove, not ours to disprove.

I'm not offering a premise, and if anyone doesn't want to help me figure this out, they don't have to. So, if you don't want to prove/disprove anything, feel free to not contribute, I won't take offense at all.

Or is this a case that's like the whistleblower protection laws that were used to give people the protection and perceived security to come forward. When, as it turns out, they are only used as a feedback mechanism to reveal flaws not seen by regulators or oversight groups.

Eh, not totally sure what you're saying here, but I'm guessing it's something like this. So I'll clarify; I'm not looking for anyone to do any whistleblowing or whatever. I'm looking for information that's already in the public sphere, and that has been verified, that proves that the media is/has been/will be manipulated for... basically any nefarious purpose. I'm looking for it because I want to have something specific to point to when I argue this point with people, besides the whole, "The CIA actually was putting LSD in the water!" thing, because everyone always says, "yeah, well that was a long time ago, they don't do that shit any more". So I want some recent stuff, since I don't know of/can't find any.

So I'm not sure why you seek to do battle with media skeptics on purely natural, curious grounds. To me, you're just a sophisticated troll, who started an illogically perceived debate. The sad thing is how how many fell for it.

Okay... Look man, I don't really give a shit if people think I'm trolling. I'm asking an honest question, if half the people yell "omfg obv troll" and the other half actually answer, that's fine by me, I'm just looking for information. The more the better, obviously, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people that I'm asking a question.

fun with google: Richard Grove dyncorp Marsh & McClellan* Project Constellation

Thanks for these, I'll look 'em up.

You need to go to Media Matters They do this for a living.

Chip Groat publishes pro-fracking study while sitting on Oil Board. You might argue this isn't regular media, but you have to include anything that would provide information of a nature that could or would influence a person's position on a matter.

The Oklahoman Disregards Mounting Evidence Linking Fracking To Earthquakes

Fox Spins Poll To Revive "Makers Vs. Takers" Rhetoric

And then of course, because no one is innocent, you have irony when Media Matters spins out stories of their own for the Justice Dept.

Amber Lyon who of course exposed CNN corruption whereby they take payments in exchange for positive publicity. The regime of Bahrain, off the top of my head.

Let's not forget the most digusting and awkward of examples. The most expansive media site the world has ever seen is a good place for this stuff to crop up. Kim Kardashian visits Bahrain * "She was hired to launch the country's first Millions of Milkshakes store – but has also become a willing propaganda puppet for Bahrain's brutal regime, while affectionately tweeting about the foreign minister in front of her nearly 17 million followers. "*

Innocence of Muslims? Youtube user Montagraph does what no mainstream 'journalist' does. This is some very interesting footage, it's about 20 minutes.

Let us also not forget that a misrepresentation can occur when a story is not covered at all. Remember how Ron Paul was treated as a presidential candidate. They can also sway opinion by misusing words like 'muslim extremist' or 'insurgent'. Or they can flat out lie to you.

Paula Broadwell accidentally mentions that the Libyan embassy was a CIA detention facility holding militants. Which, for what it's worth, is illegal. I never heard anything like that mentioned in the corporate media. To be fair, I don't watch it, I'm assuming that because I didn't see it on the front of yahoo.com.

Remember the DC madam case? “There are thousands of names, tens of thousands of phone numbers,” Ross said. “And there are people there at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers — a long, long list.”

Yesterday, WMR reported on the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey's list: "WMR has been informed that the CEO of a major corporation is a former CEO but, nonetheless, the aforementioned extremely high-level official of the Bush administration. The individual, who is definitely "newsworthy," reportedly engaged the services of Palfrey's escort firm while he was the CEO and maintained a residence off Chain Bridge Road in the Ballantrae neighborhood in McLean, Virginia, a few blocks from the headquarters of the CIA." 'WMR has confirmed with extremely knowledgeable CIA and Pentagon sources that the former CEO who is on Deborah Jeane Palfrey's list is Vice President Dick Cheney.'

Of course ABC only let loose ** 2** names. She was dead a year later, suicide.

The list goes on, but this is mostly recent stuff.

Operation Betrayus: From Benghazi to Brennan Very good alternative news podcast from www.corbettreport.com

This Richard Grove stuff is super interesting. I can't find much on the other one (probably because I'm using startpage to search) but is it Marsh & McLennan (instead of MCClellan)? I see that popping up a lot in combination with Constellation energy company, so is that the one?

I'm sorry you couldn't find this. I think it's incredibly important, and a perspective not often heard. Project constellation is Grove's first podcast where he lays out what happened to him, on whom and why he blew the whistle and some extra juicy bits also. He was supposed tobe the North tower that day.

Project Constellation This is a rebroadcast of his show through the Meria Heller podcast, his story starts about 30 minutes in. You should know, it's an audio that's 3+ hours long.

Marsh & McClellan is who he was working for, who he blew the whistle on and who he was supposed to be meeting with on 9/11 in the North(?) tower. Long story short, he blew the whistle to the SEC, and the SEC threatened him with prison for doing so.

Also if you have the time You should check out Who Killed John O'Neill. It's obnoxious at first, almost unwatchable, but an interesting piece.

edit; not exactly on topic, forgot what the topic was.

Let's all ask r/conspiracy if they think I'm crazy for believing in conspiracies! They won't affirm my bias!

Good news jonatron92, they didn't reaffirm my bias at all. In fact, I'm pretty well convinced now that the media isn't actually being manipulated by the government/corporations etc., since no one gave me any evidence to support that idea. And if I can't get evidence of that in /r/Conspiracy, it's clear that it's not actually happening, since I sure as hell won't be able to find evidence of it anywhere else.

You guys seem to believe it's okay to believe that the news is being manipulated, so give me your reasoning.

And yeah, I'm asking a biased subreddit because I want to know whether I'm actually alone in thinking this. What are the reasons for believing that the news is flawed? And if you think I shouldn't be on this subreddit, then who should I be asking, should I be on the Fox news website? I've heard a bunch of the other side of the story today, so now I want to hear from people who have (I think) similar beliefs to my own, so I can once again remember what my reasons were for believing the media is flawed.

I'm not getting a one sided argument, messages are still pouring in with an opposite point of view from whatever you guys might say.

And thusfar, you guys have given me nothing to support the idea that the media isn't to be trusted, so it looks like I should just blindly believe everything that's on the news. So guys, is there a solid reason for not trusting the media or not? And please, no more glib responses like this guy ^ , just give me actual fucking answers please.

You guys seem to believe it's okay to believe that the news is being manipulated, so give me your reasoning.

False assumption. You're essentially saying 'all news is lies' and people are rejecting that notion.

In this thread you've created a strawman and are looking for vindication for a different thread where you're actually arguing something entirely different than what you have proposed in this thread. Its underhanded.

I never fucking said that, and I'm tired of people continually repeating that. Once more;

Quote literally anywhere where I said or implied that I believe that all news is lies.

You can't, because I didn't. You know what I did say? The news has the potential to contain lies. Which no one has yet openly admitted.

And what I'm currently talking about in this thread is whether I'm right in believing in conspiracy theories at all, since after getting a hundred responses from people like you, I'm beginning to question whether or not it's logical to believe that the news can be manipulated, since none of you have yet stated that that's a possibility.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU I'm leaving this sub.

It's 7 F's and 12 U's. And this was a serious question. I've been told by a hundred people today that it's crazy to think that the media is being manipulated, so I'm really starting to question it. Could you guys actually start answering the question instead of just making lame comments like this?

• Can the media be trusted?

• If the media is being manipulated, what evidence is there to that effect?

• Do cover ups actually happen in real life, or just in books? I obviously can't find any references to any online that I can validate with any degree of certainty, so are there any hard references to government cover ups, or are we basing all of our beliefs in that on stories told around campfires?

• Does the government actually influence the media? What about corporations? Is there any hard evidence to support this, or is it all just hypothetical too?

You guys seriously need to get off your high horses and realize that I'm questioning my beliefs here, and need some help. Yes, I'm asking you guys, who the fuck else is going to furnish me with arguments for intelligent life on other planets, or proof of conspiracies? I'm actually asking, not just making a circlejerk thread.

a very quick google search threw up this website, and this article. i have no idea if theyre worthwhile, but it seems discussion of media corruption is quite prevalent online. try searching for the evidence you seek yourself, then maybe post and debate its credibility in appropriate subs. this may get you a better response than posting in subs asking for people to present their evidence to support your argument.

this may get you a better response than posting in subs asking for people to present their evidence to support your argument.

Yeah, I guess the only reason I was doing this is because I thought it was a super-commonly held opinion, and that mounds of evidence would be immediately presented to me upon asking for it.

Thanks a bunch for the links, I'll read through them and get back to you. I really just want to know if there's anything backing up what I believe.

YAY!

Go fap about how great and knowledgeable you are elsewhere. What are you 12? You think anyone here cares about what you know you pathetic affirmation needing loser. The only people upvoting this shit are the circlejerkers who like you feel the need to appear superior. Enjoy your mediocre life since anyone with a real one wouldn't give a fuck about what some random on the internet said enough to cross post here.

?

Jesus Christ, is Reddit having its period or something?

Take a look around you. This isn't a circlejerk. Out of the now couple hundred messages I've gotten, only two people have made out as though the media can be manipulated, and neither one of those people gave me any evidence as to the fact that it has been in the past. I came here because I thought that the media does get manipulated, and I want someone, anyone, to give me evidence to back that up. And if you haven't noticed, all anyone has done thusfar is argue with me about whether or not I'm saying that all media is lies.

So again, what I'm gathering is, the media is incapable of being influenced. No one has given me any evidence to the contrary, so, as of now, that seems like the most logical choice for what to believe.

I came here because I thought that the media does get manipulated, and I want someone, anyone, to give me evidence to back that up.

This is a blatant lie, and you've edited your OP to remove the link to the original conversation in order to mask it.

I don't agree with 'haveyouconsideredthe's language but he's right you did post this in the hopes of re-affirmation.

Your original post was an incredulous reaction to you coming across someone who believed 'the news is infallible' - except that wasn't their position so you created a strawman.

You did initially invoke a logical fallacy (news lied once therefore it always lies) and have since back-peddled to "I was just asking for information".

Wow, you've actually edited the original post to remove where you equated US news media to North Korean news media, tsk, tsk.

At this point you're either a troll or you need professional help.

My original post criticized you for stating something as fact simply because you saw it on the news, then stated that if something is believable simply because it's on the news, my North Korean friend has been told by a credible source that North Korea is better than the United States. I edited the post for clarity almost directly after I posted it, but the point remains in tact.

you did post this in the hopes of re-affirmation.

Yeah, I want to know what the evidence is for being skeptical of the media. Why is that a problem, PuddleofCrud? I believed something, I started to question it, so now I'm asking what the evidence was that supported that point of view. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Also, what you've been doing with this argument, as will become immediately apparent to anyone who reads this thread or the other, is exactly what you've been accusing me of; creating a strawman. I never stated, or implied, that "all news is lies", so you attempting to defeat me on that point is very much the definition of a strawman argument. If I had stated or implied at any point that "all media is a lie", I invite you again to post any evidence to support the idea that I said that. I never did, nor did I imply it. What I did say is that the news is not infallible.

I didn't equate media in the U.S. to North Korean media either, I equated the stupidity of blindly trusting the media in the U.S. to the stupidity of blindly trusting the media in North Korea, or any other country. Very different points, since it is stupid to blindly trust the media unless you know that they're absolutely valid, which is what we've been arguing. If you want, you can viewed the cached copy of the page, you'll find that I'm right. Here's the original comment;

That's true because you saw it on the news? Because you saw it on the news... in America?

It's been proven that North Korea is 100 times better than the U.S. like 100 times already. My friend saw it on the news. In North Korea.

So, where in that comment did I either say, or imply, that 'literally everything on the news is a complete lie'?

I'd say it seems pretty clear that what I implied was that you can't automatically trust something just because it's on the news. Since nationwide news networks have been manipulated by governments before, there's a chance that it could happen again, so it would be best not to think something is true based solely on the merits of the fact that it was on the news. Independent research is obviously necessary, and it's important to view conflicting viewpoints.

Seriously, go ahead and view the cache of the page, and just one time, find me a single piece of evidence that supports what you're saying. You keep saying that I think everything in the media is a lie? Well then find a single time that I said that. I literally never did, that's just your strawman.

So posting here about how smart you are for knowing this shit isn't a circlejerk? Why did you post here? You trying to educate the people in /r/conspiracy that the media is corrupt? You expect anyone here to disagree? Either you're retarded or you're looking for a suck off. Fuck off. You're looking for a back pat you affirmation needing wank bag.

Where did I say I was smart? And yeah, plenty of people are disagreeing, here and elsewhere, and I have yet to see anyone actually give me any evidence of a media cover-up. So like I said, I have to believe that there really isn't any evidence, because if there was, surely I'd find it here.

Butthurt redditor is butthurt.

OK, I'll genuinely try and break this down for you:

OP posts evidently and objectively true statement.

You disagree with this statement, arguing that 'everything on TV is/could be a lie' (you back-peddled a bit on this but for the sake of the argument...)

Its pointed out to you that this is a fallacious (read: shitty) argument and I'll expand on this - you're essentially saying 'the news lied once therefore the news is (probably) all lies'; a logical fallacy.

You've misunderstood this as people arguing that 'the news is always true' (which would be another fallacy), either that or you're knowingly arguing a strawman for the hell of it.

You disagree with this statement, arguing that 'everything on TV is/could be a lie'

I didn't back-peddle, I literally never said everything on T.V. was a lie. But again, feel free to quote wherever you think I said that. I said that I believed that things on T.V. had the potential to be lies, and what I got in response from the original person I was arguing with was, 'it's all true, except when someone (rarely) makes a mistake, but there are never cover ups, and the media isn't controlled by corporations/governments at all'. Since then he's edited the comment, but that was extremely close to exactly what he said. And that's what I was arguing with, since I didn't believe that.

Got any specific incidences you'd care to cite, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

You've edited your posts multiple times to backpeddle to the 'i'm just asking questions' position. It's rather cowardly of you.

Looking into that returned a whole flood, thanks very much for this. I can't believe how often they try and do that... "the plan was never 'stay the course'". I mean, really? Anyways, I'm going to keep looking at this, thanks again for your help in pointing me in the right direction.