To think that wacko conspiracy theories are ampilified to discredit "real" ones?

[BlueJuniper94]

AIBU to think that extreme tinfoil conspiracy theories are amped up to malign those who are skeptical of official narratives. And to think this only compounds the collapsing trust in mainstream media?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory... I know....

What's the connection between gullible/paranoid idiots believing whacko conspiracy theories, and a reduction in trust of mainstream media?

Earlier today I heard a former Republican senator, obviously a big fan of Trump, and used to be on the US Intelligence Committee. He was saying how the intelligence services can't be trusted as they are part of the Deep State!

This is obviously a concerted attempt by Trump loyalists to trash the intelligence reports that Iran's nuclear facilities were not 'obliterated'.

The idea that senior politicians put about the idea that the press and intelligence services of the US are part of a deep state conspiracy is staggering and dangerous.

Uh oh, we are now conspiracy theorising about conspiracy theories

No, I think there are some people who really are that daft.

Which wacko conspiracy theories do you think are real ones? How do you tell the difference from the un-real wacko ones?

Clearly it is highly effective!

Clearly you're rubbish at making reasoned arguments.

A theory is precisely that, a theory. You can never know. But you can be skeptical about what you are being told.

I'm not sure they are amplified to discredit genuine stories, although I suppose that could be effective, but I think some people like to sneer at anyone who questions the official narrative on any event. The Iran Contea Affair would be one of many examples of where our intelligence agencies went rogue.

If you can't think of any examples of when there was a mainstream/media consensus on something which then turned out not to be true, then you're in no position to be participating in this discussion.

Whom do you posit is doing the amping?

British state media, Guardian, establishment media companies.

Do they all get together in a room and plan this? Can you name names?

I agree with you OP. Take vaccines for example. Every time anyone has any questions about vaccines, or says their kid had a reaction to one, some idiots jump on it and start banging on about the very obviously discredited and wrong Mr. Wakefield with his autism crap. Every time. It drowns out people's genuine issues with things that aren't quite right when people throw around these extreme (and obviously silly) ideas.

https://revisesociology.com/2019/08/05/neo-marxist-media/ this is what any kid doing sociology will be learning - it's quite easy to understand. This is taught in schools.

Of course I can, but I'm struggling to think of any that supports the argument that you started with.

There have always been conspiracy theories, from the pretty plausible all the way to "the moon's flat!!!!" level of whacko. But the erosion in trust in mainstream media is a relatively recent phenomenon; it coincides much more with the rise of social media and, in particular, its exploitation by political groups than conspiracy theories by themselves.

So again; what's the connection that you see between the erosion in trust of mainstream media and conspiracy theories? This is, after all, where you started but are still steadfastly avoiding any attempt to explain what you're getting at.

I don’t think it’s an intentional thing. It’s just that if you are bonkers enough to believe a conspiracy theory you are pretty invested in it being true (otherwise it confirms that you are really very bonkers).

So people who believe that vaccines will turn you green and give you three arms will shout very loudly because it makes them feel better if you believe it too. Whereas I think vaccines are just a normal healthy thing to do that prevents acquisition of infectious diseases. I don’t shout loudly about it because I don’t shout loudly about brushing my teeth or taking my vitamins or getting my flu jab. I’ve got an actual full interesting life to live that isn’t wrapped up in anyone believing that brushing teeth is good or bad.

Iran Contra was a rogue mission run by Oliver North under the presidency of Ronald Reagan - a mission that suited Reagan's goal of toppling the Sandinista government.

That's a far cry from the intelligence service going rogue against its own government and president, which is what Trump loyalists are claiming.

I think when the world is telling you to believe that a novel virus originated in a wet market because a pangolin got too close to a bat, opposite from a sars bio lab - then you have a catalyst for mistrust and disbelief with very real and dangerous consequences.

Social media is revolutionary in the way the printing press was. Social media allows us to be exposed to (if we choose) alternative theories than run counter to establishment media. This allows the public to see these sources, formally considered to be reputable and authoritative, to very aggressively attempt to shut down these other perspectives, only to then conceed that what they saw on social media, was right all along. Once people have witnesses several cycles of this, they tend not to trust these as sources of information. Lab leak anyone? This seems so obvious I don't understand why I have to explain it

X post! Precisely. This was even censored by Facebook.

Please point to an example of the establishment media "very aggressively" attempting to shut down these other perspectives.

Governments and powerful entities create or encourage untruths, that's for sure. The most plausible explanation I heard for the Roswell "alien crash landing" was that the military made the whole thing up to cover up a military accident, the thinking being that putting something ridiculous out there would distract the public from what really happened.

There's plenty of evidence of this happening elsewhere. Take the first nuclear bomb tests for example, the US authorities prepared various public statements in advance to explain away whichever potential outcome happened. The one they used was designed to explain away the huge noise and bright flash that could be observed from far and wide, they claimed that there had been an accidental explosion at an unmanned ammunition depot.

Conspiracy theories are just an extension of this idea - the authorities create a false narrative to hide the truth. When assessing conspiracy theories we should ask ourselves why someone would make it up and what they're actually hiding.

I think so many of the conspiracy theories start out with a grain of 'truth' be it reality or hoax, people/ social media run with it. Those already interested enough to Google even one thing, have their SM algorithms add more and more. They end up down rabbit holes and in echo chambers. Evidence is often documents/photos/papers taken out of context, not in full or misunderstood adding to their weight. Argument against it unless you are prepared to spend time on it yourself or are an expert in that particular subject is futile. You just get shouted down as believing what 'they' tell you and not doing your own research. Some of it can sound convincing.

Lab leak seems an obvious one