"Group investigations". My tv was on the other day I noticed a tv show that group investigations was what the show was about. Idk what the name was but its gonna be on cbs and that Piven guy is in it.

News Media: The only place one can find real news nowadays are in forums like r/conspiracy or other major conspiracy forums.

Do you really think this is true?

But... there is almost no original research here. 90% of the posts are people constructing a narrative from MSM sources. There is no in-field reporting, no original interviews, just regurgitation of actual journalism.

Not all but some. You think you speak for everyone?

There's a lot more nuance in life than "MSM is full of shit".

Do you believe MSM news is real and if so, which stations in particular do you recommend?

This question is almost ridiculously broad, so far to be useless. This is what I mean by nuance.

But yes, in general I believe the outlets that you would describe as the single entity named "MSM" tend to broadly report the truth as they see it, mostly disinforming by omitting information.

The incentives towards lying are more closely visible in what you might call conspiracy media, where assumptions take the place of facts, and generally speaking negative views of media reports are coloured by bias and inherent hostility.

I'd recommend reading a wide variety of sources and staying away from TV entirely.

CSM, WSJ, WaPo, NYT for US news.

Le Monde, BBC, and the Economist for more broad global perspectives.

This is only what works for me.

The world is not as simple as you pretend it is in this thread

You know this already.

Let me ask - when you ask if news is "real", what do you mean?

Read my post again. If it doesn't hurt, I guess. I said:

I'd recommend reading a wide variety of sources and staying away from TV entirely.

THen Ilisted some.

If you're looking for a radio or TV outlet then say so.

I've no intention if feeding the misuse of an already stupid label like "MSM".

Thank you. Was just going to ignore the childish question but you nailed it

Your question is the root of the problem. Blanketing a large segment aims to attribute negative aspects from one outlet to another through the transitive property. For instance I doubt many would defend CNN from exaggerating, sensationalizing, and twisting facts. Same could be said of Fox News. However, I would rank WaPo as rigorous in telling the truth and reliable for anonymous sources while pushing a narrative in their opinion pieces that one needs to be aware off.

I do not equate WaPo to CNN. Your question personifies this by not allowing individual outlet opinion. I also think its a tool by those in executive power to blunt WaPo revelations by using discredits of CNN for instance.

Washington Post looks good, but they're deceitful as any. WaPo was founded as part of a CIA operation to spread propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 101053}

It was founded in 1887, some people come out with indirect evidence like their owners other company provides AWS to the CIA. However you can't dispute their record. Sure the opinion pieces try to sell a story, everyone has bias. But when WaPo says something happened they are overwhelmingly right on the money.

This final point is the most important to me. I find it reassuring that critics who dug deep cite the two over CIA deal and Podesta. It means they were hard pressed to find anything wrong with articles which is what matters.

You're right about the founding date, my mistake.

However, you're ignoring their extremely central role in Operation Mockingbird simply because I confused the founding date with the founding of the Operation.

WaPo was founded as part of a CIA operation

The Washington Post existed long before the CIA.

Do you believe what you wrote?

No, it was a mistake.

I however have been meaning to ask you, Chuck:

What conspiracy do you believe in?

Or do you only devote a huge amount of your day to arguing with us? And if so, why?

These subs are designed so you can't link to your original research. That would be spam. Been banned from many subs on reddit for doing so. Even though I make no money, have no advertisements and don't even ask for a donation. Conspiracy has been the only one that has been at leat fair. Agreed with your statement.

You're allowed to link to your websites, blogs , w/e. As long as it doesn't cross 20% of your post history. This is to prevent just blatantly spamming advertisement without participating.

Next time it happens I will tell the moderators you said it was ok.

I'll save you the trouble so you can quote the mods themselves.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6tm66g/this_is_

Removed for spamming. If you continue to spam your website it will result in a bam. Rule of thumb is 80% of your content cannot be from a site you are affiliated with.

If you would like more examples check out the mod logs.

Know those are the rules. r conspiracy seems to be the only one that is fair.

It was founded in 1887, some people come out with indirect evidence like their owners other company provides AWS to the CIA. However you can't dispute their record. Sure the opinion pieces try to sell a story, everyone has bias. But when WaPo says something happened they are overwhelmingly right on the money.

This final point is the most important to me. I find it reassuring that critics who dug deep cite the two over CIA deal and Podesta. It means they were hard pressed to find anything wrong with articles which is what matters.

Yes, agreed.

Even in very small ways. I posted in a little no-upvote 10-comment thread a note about my local weather. This is news that is just not being heralded in mass media! It's very weird (as is about every thing going on).

We often get better analysis of emergencies, shootings, events and conditions from the viral public commentarium than we do from anything "official". Maybe it is why google is changing search algorithms....

OP believes 4chan LARPers liars even if they fail to deliver multiple times. They believed a twitter account had somehow defeated aliens and they would then expose the "elite cabal." When they failed to do that they made excuses for them and said they still thing it's legit. I am not exaggerating at all.

Soros, Rothschild, Clinton, Bush, Kissinger

Isn't it interesting how the Kochs or the Mercers are never mentioned in these meta threads?

Sure

So you list only the flavors of the month as opposed to acknowledging more of the conservative disruptors?

They are all lapdogs to the same people open your eyes and stop dividing

I'll always find it fascinating how many users here spout the same message without proper punctuation.

Ok so your just anal about ALL innane details, good 2 know

You're*, and no, it is just curious. Similar usernames among many users, odd turns of phrase, and the ever lacking proper punctuation.

Yes you guys did swell detective work doxxing an innocent man the other day.

Just another "know it all cry baby post"

Can't answer the point?

And yet you engaged in it.

yeeepp.. what is happening right now is the creation of a decentralized hive mind :)

Still not going to address why you're making claims that are directly contradicted by source material you provide, eh?

It must be "the shills" making you type wrong wrong no no things.

When I submit something to /r/conspiracy or post something to it, I invariably get Zionists responding to me with the racist Zionist Narrative, and when this happens I quite naturally don't want to waste my time pretending that they are interested in having any kind of dialog, so I simply block them, saving myself the harassment they would throw my way. This has proven to be an invaluable aid to me in keeping the shit out of my mailbox. I heartily recommend this strategy to anyone who does not want racist Zionist crap in their mailbox.

I've seen you block posts that had nothing to do with Zionism.

Well, of course. Sometimes I just block idiots or liars, too.

Among your mistaken premises you also dropped a joke referring to a popular false insult aimed at VP Al Gore. He never claimed he "released" or invented the internet.

I cannot possibly help you with the rest of your delusions, but this one is pretty easy to avoid in the future if you care about accuracy.

I didn't mean to defend the cabal passionately, or at all.

I was just pointing out one of your lazy errors of implication.

It does pay better that CTR dollars.

I vomited in my mouth a little bit when you called 4 chan investigators

You're allowed to link to your websites, blogs , w/e. As long as it doesn't cross 20% of your post history. This is to prevent just blatantly spamming advertisement without participating.

Well, of course. Sometimes I just block idiots or liars, too.