I think it's more about being media literate than "trusting" or not trusting the mainstream media. There are classes you can take to learn how to read what little things these shows and news reports do to bring ratings. Yes, news channels and shows do operate on ratings--shocking! But not all of it is a lie. You just have to be well-versed in the business that is media in order to be able to deconstruct and understand the hidden meanings.
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
why trust the mainstream media?
- Thread starter +paradox
- Start date
Should I tell Ghost/J that I used to be a registered editor of Wikipedia, and quit over their policies and favoritism in the mid 2000's.
In fact, a couple of my pages are still there. Although the 'discussion' post where I pointed out their double standard about links to outside documents was deleted several years ago by an "insider".
In fact, a couple of my pages are still there. Although the 'discussion' post where I pointed out their double standard about links to outside documents was deleted several years ago by an "insider".
+Justice said:i just used wikipedia to make my point making faster for the all of us, you're still not getting the point, facts don't lie...
good game...
Yes they can.
When the "facts" themselves have been altered to support a particular agenda.
For evidence, I point to the manufactured 'facts' associated with the Man Made Global Warming argument.
For example, the Pacific Oscillation was ignored. It IS NOT MENTIONED in the UN report.
Same with "global warming' on Mars and the moons of Jupiter.
The cyclical nature of ice advance and retreat over multiple millenniums was downplayed.
The various Solar Cycles were all but ignored, such as the maunder minimum.
But, "the science is settled".
+Justice said:so, you're saying that the fbi stats are wrong then, or?
i'm not understanding, what are you arguing at?
and lets not change the subject to climate change...
If you got the stats off of wikipedia, yes I am saying more then likely they are wrong somehow.
If you are talking about the hilarious FBI stats showing POTENTIAL threats but in reality not really the most dangerous threat I am calling that FBI stat bogus even if it was from the FBI. Now what I am calling that is a agenda.
@liberty, i was clearly replying to @drleftover and now the fbi has an agenda when it goes against you? but yet you'll use the fbi stats and information to prove your points if you had to...
now who's the conspiracy theorists?
i bet @liberty is one of those extreme righty 'sovereign citizen' cop-killer terrorist, or at least a poser of the movement, eh?
now who's the conspiracy theorists?
i bet @liberty is one of those extreme righty 'sovereign citizen' cop-killer terrorist, or at least a poser of the movement, eh?
I know who you were referring to. I sure would use a FBI stat but I would not use a stat that says potential threat. LOL!
if the fbi says that the sovereign citizen movement is the most dangerous group in america and the top cop-killer group in america then why not believe them like you do in any situation that you see fit when it benefits your side or argument?
i think you're one of the most hypocritical person i've came across man, for real, read what you post...
i think you're one of the most hypocritical person i've came across man, for real, read what you post...
+Justice said:if the fbi says that the sovereign citizen movement is the most dangerous group in america and the top cop-killer group in america then why not believe them like you do in any situation that you see fit when it benefits your side or argument?
i think you're one of the most hypocritical person i've came across man, for real, read what you post...
It says potential threat but not actually the biggest threat. It is a guess and a opinion.
Are you that little you have to make it personal all the time when someone gives you a spirited debate of opposite opinion?
they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
+Justice said:they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
No they are guessing that this group will be the most dangerous ones in America. But in fact they are not the most dangerous group of people in America. That is why they use the word potential.
Justice you're one paranoid person lol.
TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
No they are guessing that this group will be the most dangerous ones in America. But in fact they are not the most dangerous group of people in America. That is why they use the word potential.
they base it on numbers, data, research and stats from the past year to determine which group is the most dangerous...
Let me guess +Justice.
NWO is the front for the media.
NWO is the front for the media.
+Justice said:TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
No they are guessing that this group will be the most dangerous ones in America. But in fact they are not the most dangerous group of people in America. That is why they use the word potential.
they base it on numbers, data, research and stats from the past year to determine which group is the most dangerous...
Then they would say they are and not potential. Potential would be nowhere in there wording.
Enter Username Here said:
it has nothing to do with conspiracies and theories and more with the fact that the media are being constantly caught faking and lying... and that the government can tell the media anything and the media will report what the government said...
TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
No they are guessing that this group will be the most dangerous ones in America. But in fact they are not the most dangerous group of people in America. That is why they use the word potential.
they base it on numbers, data, research and stats from the past year to determine which group is the most dangerous...
Then they would say they are and not potential. Potential would be nowhere in there wording.
everyone is a potential threat to everyone, what are you talking about?
they base the threats of each group on data, facts, stats and other means... not opinions and guesses...
+Justice said:TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:TRUE LIBERTY said:+Justice said:they base it on stats and facts, not opinions and guesses...
and calling someone a hypocrite when one is proven to be one is no more harsh then you calling people, including myself all sort of names such as a "loony-toon", a "nut-case", "nut-bag", etc. etc.
No they are guessing that this group will be the most dangerous ones in America. But in fact they are not the most dangerous group of people in America. That is why they use the word potential.
they base it on numbers, data, research and stats from the past year to determine which group is the most dangerous...
Then they would say they are and not potential. Potential would be nowhere in there wording.
everyone is a potential threat to everyone, what are you talking about?
they base the threats of each group on data, facts, stats and other means... not opinions and guesses...
No then they would say they are the biggest threat in America with the data and such. All they see is a potential threat because they know very little about them. So it is a guess and that is why they potential and not actual.
