Here is what I read at about 05:00 this morning:
Relying on Twitter, Facebook and Google to provide you with a balanced view is not recommended. Social Media of this type can lead to an internalised bubble of thoughts that reflect our own…
Ho ho ho. The classic flawed argument in a nutshell and the crux of the whole issue of information input today and here’s why:
There’s a war on right now about fake news, which all but the sheltered know about and where does the fake news come from?
From the MSM of course, everyone from the BBC to CNN, to the point there is today no reliable source of news out there in “handed out” form. None.
For someone to tell someone else the words in that quote is deeply troubling as that person must be getting his or her news from somewhere, No one is in a total cocoon.
For almost everyone, the primary source of that news is the MSM – the very embodiment of fake news. It’s like in WWII, relying on the Ministry of Information for your daily reality.
Thank goodness we do have the net today and there are innumerable examples of this old control by the MSM now not working any more on a huge number of people, 52% of us if you wish to give it a number.
If however, you’re still one of the 48% whose reality is the MSM, then a typical scenario is – you may well switch on the radio in the morning and the TV in the evening, before and after work and if you do that, you are being fed fake news with your food, steadily, every day.
you are caught in a neverending bubble of the same faux views and those eventually become your views to an extent, otherwise you’d throw up your hands and switch off.
And that is warped reality.
The tone of that statement is instructional, is it not, it’s offering kindly advice to the naive rejector of the MSM, saying don’t do that – you’re in a bubble – come back to the faux reality of the MSM.
This is the whole basis of the war at this time, it’s the key issue in itself – the sources of sound information.
All right, an example is Flynn’s contact with the Russians. The NYT said there was government collusion with the Russians.That was the reality they pumped out, knowing it was a beat-up in order to skew the undecideds into believing a lie.
The NYT then retracted it.
Why would they do that? Because not only was he officially exonerated from any wrongdoing – apart from telling a porky to Pence, the real reason he was dropped – but the whole question of potential POTUSes and staff speaking with all interested nations is one that has been going on from the year dot – Obama himself did it without a squeak from the MSM. He even banned immigration intake as Trump has done.
Not a squeak from anyone, as there is nothing wrong with it.
Has any of this been an MSM lead? Did you see this on Sky News? Not a chance in hell.
Yet we’re able to give you that hard information now, about that retraction. How could that be?
Because we have alternative sources.
The best current combination is Breitbart, Twitter, comments sections, blogs … and to a lesser extent, speaking with others. Why ‘to a lesser extent’?
Because it’s odds on that the people you speak with will have got their news from either the Guardian, BBC, Sky, Mail journos, Virgin, Murdoch, Independent, Huffington Post, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT, WP or any other TV or radio channel, e.g. the egregious MSNBC, not to mention regional news services, all in deep captcha.
Every one of those pumps out fake news.
The BBC, in continuing to push the false information on Flynn as fact, was at best misinforming and at worst guilty of criminal disinformation to the population, a population which still largely believes the BBC is ‘balanced’.
And that naivety is truly worrying. Now, let’s go back to our own sources.
Breitbart itself has issues but by and large, it puts out the truth – I’d trust a Delingpole before a Kuennsberg. This is reflected in the policy decisions made as a result of things it says are going on. It’s the closest online source to reality, despite its flaws, something people need to be aware of and a key reason it is vilified by the baddies, plus their 48%.
They realize their brainwashing is under threat, that the 52% simply don’t believe them any more and so, in their usual way, they trot out a new weasel word, Populism, as if the will of the majority is somehow a bad thing.
Twitter – this is just a platform, that’s all. It’s a means of allowing people to communicate with one another and just as out there in the world, users range from nutters to very clued up people, so it is on Twitter. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hone those sources down to ‘trusted’ sources on your own timeline.
This is your quickest way to get actual news as it happens. There are, of course, many opinion tweets following that and you learn which give real news and which react to it. There’s a certain growing up has to be done here.
[Plus there’s a caveat in comments below.]
Comments sections of online news. Forget anything the Mail journos write – go straight to comments. There you’ll find trolls, mad people, people spoiling for a fight but you’ll also find some hard data in places. Out of maybe 300 comments, five will have good information you can then check from other sources.
Then come blogs. As you very well know, there are good ones and bad. Even the good ones sometimes comment on news, occasionally they bring it.
So readers of the 52% today have their own range of reality sources.
Wikipedia. Written mainly by the 48%, as everything mainstream is these days – it can only be used for quick overviews but once having read those, then you go to somewhere else and of course, that is done via Google.
We are well aware of how Google skews information and I’ve said many times you need to go to about page 7 onwards to find anything genuine.
Then it comes down to what questions you ask it.
I’ll type in the topic and then add negatives, pejoratives in the search. That brings up the detractors.
Then you go back to the search and type in positives, praise and then you read those.
Only the naive write in the topic heading alone and leave it at that, hoping to get something unbiased. Now I do agree with the author of the statement in the quote that a huge number do type in the topic and that’s that – they do not know how to use Google properly, that you actually need to overcome their algorithm first.
This should be taught in schools but it’s not, is it? Why not? Because it would negate the 48% unreality, the one fed by the globalists, universities, schools, the UN, the EU and so on. So the whole diabolical cycle of disinformation goes on.