Do You Trust The News Media?

by minimus 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NotNew

  Absolutely no...I don't Believe what they report, at first! Remember WMD. WEPONDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?... they reported this as a fact, but it was not. So who's controls the main media outlets? Is it those who want to shape your view?..so they can justify their reaction to it, and the governments response?

  That was one example of false accusations against a nation!

  So the question is why would you!...why would you trust main news stations for accurate news?

  Their track record for the truth is?...very misleading! And self serving.

  Like it's been said "fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me!"
• 

  Bungi Bill

  Our local media appears to be reasonably accurate as far as it goes - but only as far as it goes!

  By that I mean it typically provides a very superficial coverage of a very few headline-grabbing events, but then has absolutely no follow up news after the initial report. The whole effect is to leave a person feeling much like they have been completely left in the dark.

  It is difficult to know where to turn in order to keep reasonably well informed. Not the local news media, anyway (perhaps I should resume reading of Awake! Sorry, just kidding).

  So far, the best I have been able to come up with is the reading of periodicals that deal with specific matters, rather than general news. In my case, this principally means the regular reading of engineering and technical publications, such as Create, the journal of the Institute of Engineers, Australia. Such publications do deal with a surprising variety of subjects, and at a much greater depth than could ever be obtained from an eight-second sound bite on TV.

  I remain, however, open to suggestions!
• 

  Spoletta

  Absolutely no...I don't Believe what they report, at first! Remember WMD. WEPONDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?... they reported this as a fact, but it was not.

  They were told by our government that the weapons were real, and reported on that information.

  Today, on the other hand, the right wing media reports something, and the government thinks it's real.

  Quite a difference.
  
  
• 

  bohm

  One agency made a mistake on the WMDs and Bush ran with it.

  They are clear on the fact that a mistake was made and didn't go on TV to blame a random "legal expert" on Fox.
• 

  Simon

  One agency made a mistake on the WMDs and Bush ran with it.

  That's incorrect. The "evidence" to justify action was sought instead of being interpreted from the facts. They knew (or should have known) that he evidence was flimsy but they didn't care.

  Bush was a tool.
  
  
• 

  bohm

  Simon: My understanding is that it was primarily (only?) the CIA which were providing the evidence for WMDs, possibly under some political pressure and relying too much on an assumption that there were WMDs.

  When I say mistake I don't mean a mistake like in: whoops, dropped the plate honey, kind of mistake but that they said there were WMDs with a confidence evaluation that was not supported by the evidence, i.e. a 'real' mistake (for instance the famous "curveball").
• 

  Spoletta

  As I recall, the information was considered so airtight that poor Colin Powell embarrassed himself in front of the UN with diagrams and charts to show the danger from the WMDs.