Mainstream media debate.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Anyone (Jim especially) want to discuss the claim that the BBC (or the mainstream media in general for that matter) is a credible source?

Please read the articles and use the hyperlinks.


BICOM : This is how Israel runs the British press
http://www.infowars.com/bicom-this-is-h ... ish-press/


Pro-Israeli Lobby Group Made BBC, Sky News ‘Change Narrative’ On Stories
http://www.infowars.com/pro-israeli-lob ... n-stories/

[Juliette]

Good. I like Israel. They have my permission to control more media as far as I am concerned.


On the subject, it is not a matter of any news agency being 'truthful', but them being 'more truthful than the rest'. Would you trust Russia Today (owned by commercial and political interest) or Infowars ('owned by' publicity seeking and sensation value and the idea of protesting against something) more than the BBC (owned by commercial and private interest)? No news agency is ever truthful. While they may present true news, there will always be humans involved who will say "This is interesting", and "This is not interesting". What is interesting to them, may not be interesting to you and vice versa. Does that make them less truthful? If omission is seen as denial, then yes, it does. But does it make them less truthful as other news agencies? I doubt it.

So is the BBC 100% absolutely trustworthy? No. It does give a good idea of what is happening in the world, but so do more news agencies. Does the BBC have an additional quality that might make them special (more or less biased)? Perhaps its history. Perhaps its owners. Who knows. Who cares. The best news is firsthand news, but I do not see us travelling the world to experience everything exactly the way it happened. There is no such thing as absolute truth wherever humans are involved. They lie, and cheat, and deceive, and often completely unintentional. That is another segue, but to repeat my point; no news agency is trustworthy. The fact that a news agency presents other news simply means they have another focus. So be it. Just do not listen to anyone without critical thinking.


On the matter of 'credible sources', though; all news agencies are second-hand sources. Everything you get from the internet is at least a second-hand source. If you believe you can find absolutely credible sources on the internet, you are as deluded as the Numa numa guy.

[Legendary Apophis]

Interesting debate. I agree with Jo, that there isn't a "Truth" provided. They provide different versions of an event, and I guess that depending on your personal opinions, you would more or less prefer to follow this or that news. This explains why Avenger due to his opinions takes sources like Infowars as main interest to find out things before checking other sources, for my personal case, I prefer mainstream medias, who have some kind of point of view (rather center-right medias rather than deep left-wing medias for example). It all comes to your own expectations and your own set of values, opinions...
Some medias however are more famous for being trustworthy than others, doesn't mean they are flawless, just that you would more likely believe their stance on an event rather than another one less trustworthy.
Critical thinking is preferable to keep whatever medias you read/watch, regardless of them being "close to your stances" or neutral or to the contrary "opposite to your stances".

[~Drunken Master~]

[[KMA]Avenger]

:smt043

That doesn't help the debate much mate what is it you find amusing?


I'll reply fully later, bit busy at the mo.