To ask, do you question the news?

[stella139]

Do you tend to accept the things you read at face value, or do you question the validity of what the narrative of newspapers etc is?
I think there has been a major move toward looking into things further on an individual level, but after reading a few threads on conspiracies here, do you think that taking on this role of researching would lead to more people questioning the motives of news sources?

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I never take what I read at face value. The media always has a bias one way or another.

@Waxonwaxoff0

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I never take what I read at face value. The media always has a bias one way or another.

This.

I used to trust BBC & ITN but not the newspapers. Newspapers were so overtly biased it was easy to spot, but the television news was more better at disguising their angle.

Nowadays I realise that all mainstream news is biased. You only have to look at the one-sided way they handled the BLM and climate change riots. The one good thing that has come out of those movements is that more people than ever are realising how biased the media is. Contrary opinions are dismissed or not even aired because they don't fit the image that the powers that be want to push.

I think everyone should question the news. The truth is that 6 companies own 95% of the media. I think it would be strange to not question the motives of those companies. They get to control the narrative and we don't even really know who they are.

Of course if you do question the narrative you get labelled as a crazy conspiracy theorist.

My parter works in the news, as do many of my friends, and I have a degree in journalism. It honestly shocks me how gullible people are in believing all the obvious nonsense the press puts out (particularly with regards to praising BJ’s woeful handling of COVID, and wrt the younger Royals - if people knew half the shit about William that’s been covered up, and the amount of pressure to puff up Kate!).

But that’s a far cry from conspiracy theories. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills that certain papers want to puff up the Tories and others want to attack them. That’s a million miles away from delusional nonsense like pizzagate.

Of course if you do question the narrative you get labelled as a crazy conspiracy theorist.

This is what I I see a lot of, where people who bring attention to things like Epstein's associations and the Royal Family's cover-ups are put into the same category as the more extreme conspiracy theorists

"if people knew half the shit about William that’s been covered up, and the amount of pressure to puff up Kate!)."
If this is true, then IMO, this says a lot about the integrity of your partner and your friends, that they are prepared to go along with the cover ups.

Don’t be stupid, puffing up royals and other celebs is pretty basic media stuff. Or do you actually believe all the fawning and nonsense the media say about celebs? (Guess what: most TV and movie casts are not “like a family” and female celebs don’t stay thin by doing yoga and running after their kids.)

I personally don’t believe a celeb’s personal life is anyone else’s business. And none of my friends work on tabloids or on showbiz pages.

Of course. I also always look for what the headlines are trying to detract from. There’s usually something ridiculous that isn’t getting a lot of airtime.

And my partner wrote an expose on one of the most powerful men in the world, so don’t give me that crap just because he’s not outing a father of three for shagging around. It’s gross that the RF have manipulated and controlled the press so much, but it doesn’t mean that all journalism is tainted. Most serious political journalists and investigative reporters care passionately about truth. If having to tolerate the odd celeb puff piece is what it takes to be able to run investigative journalism into the Kremlin and other matters that actually matter, so be it.

I question what's deemed newsworthy enough to be covered and in how much detail and what either gets glossed over or completely ignored. Some of it may be unintentional bias towards certain topics but some is quite clearly agenda driven.

I dont really care what the rf get up to, I can just imagine. So unless its something like paedophilia or illegal stuff, I'm not interested.

@stell139 I agree. There's a thread active on here at the minute calling conspiracy theorists mentally ill. I'm sure a small portion of them are, like a small portion of any group might be, but questioning things does not make you mentally ill. It's worrying this is what a lot of people think.

I used to trust BBC & ITN but not the newspapers. Newspapers were so overtly biased it was easy to spot, but the television news was more better at disguising their angle

Nowadays I realise that all mainstream news is biased. You only have to look at the one-sided way they handled the BLM and climate change riots. The one good thing that has come out of those movements is that more people than ever are realising how biased the media is. Contrary opinions are dismissed or not even aired because they don't fit the image that the powers that be want to push

^^ agree 100% with this. If I see an article posted, I try and make sure I source an alternative before forming an opinion. It’s not always easy to do that.

Questioning the biases of the media is not the same as believing conspiracy theories .