turn off the news

… and leave it off.

Seems like with every other incident – big or small – the media jump on the chance to tell us how we (who are not involved) are thinking and feeling about, and reacting to, same incidents. After that they start providing numerous corrections for all that, according to them, is wrong with us. The original incident – whatever it is/was – is all too often lost in a blur of empty words along the way.

No need to focus on any particular subject or media … it is pretty much the same across the board.

Accusing others for spreading conspiracy theories, seems to be especially popular these days, and we get same theories served in quite some details, as if we care.
If media personalities have such good insight in other people's minds and conspiracy theories, why can they not keep these to themself instead of spreading quackeries about them? What is the point in doing more of what they say is wrong?

whichever way the wind blows…

Never expect media institutions to pay attention to historical facts and/or stay true to a course, unless they can use any of it to their advantage. They also expect us to forget all they said last time they told us what to think, and immediately switch our minds onto what they say now.
180 degree turns at any given time, is the norm in media, and once they have chosen side they tend to keep at it no matter what happens and/or changes along the way.

No use in calling out media institutions on any of their contradictions, as they always represent the right side, and always release the only true facts to the public. Everyone else, including competing presenters, always got it wrong and should be ridiculed for not understanding and accepting the perfect logic and sacred science behind whatever the only truly reliable presenters deliver.

local vs. global…

I may look at news outlets mainly from a national point of view, but do not see much deviation in what comes our way from other parts of the world. Thus, I allow myself to conclude that media institutions behave pretty much the same way, and are equally locked in by the limited interests of the few, across the globe.

With that in mind it does not matter much who they are and what they deliver. If the subjects matter to us we will have to perform our own fact-checking of them anyway. Being knowledgeable has always been a good thing for us end-users, and these days more than ever. Just don't tell anyone…

No really trustworthy media outlets in the world? Well, that depends on what one means by “trustworthy”. The old rule that “90% of everything is crud”, still seems to hold true, and I have not found any exceptions for media institutions in that rule. Taking any of them at their words, will be highly irresponsible if it is facts one is after.
That some of what we are being flooded with from various news-desks can be quite entertaining, is another matter entirely. Just wish they called the fillers what they really are…

who are sound skepticism dangerous for?

The various techniques used to stigmatize those of us who do not accept everything presented by authorities and “reliable media” without asking questions and checking with other sources, are signs of seriously degenerated societies with decay and root-rot at the top levels.
Ridiculing or just stupefying the person who objects to or just questions what comes from above, instead of dealing with the real issues at hand, is the first line of defence used by media personalities, “experts”, and people in power, when they feel they are losing ground in public discussions. That is; if they dare to appear in person in fora where real discussions based on knowledge take place.

Well-known “divide and conquer” methods are applied against all groups of people who choose to think and work for and by themselves, rather than rot in awe in front of whatever object or device the superiorly knowledgeable beings in media institutions use to push carefully selected and adjusted facts of the day through to us.
Most of those accused of serving conspiracy theories will at least show up in person to present their theories and the data behind them to the public … if the thought police allow them to attend that is.

seriously?

Well, there are some out there who take various conspiracy theories serious enough to try to sensor and block everyone who openly expresses disagreements with the official policies and lines of thought. Thus, one has no choice but to conclude that many of the diverging data, theories and opinions most likely are very real, even if that conclusion is based solely on the type and amount of resistance and suppression they are met with. And when going through the actual raw data from all sides in depth, that conclusion holds up extremely well on a rather high number of the most important issues that affect our societies today.

Must say that I find watching the herd of politically correct people streaming in to play in their by now pretty gory-looking sandboxes, both locally and globally, more than a little bit boring, and also quite disturbing and depressing at times.
Guess I can stand to watch the nonsense for a while longer though, as long as I can keep myself and mine on the sideline.

sincerely georg; sign

Hageland 15.apr.2021
last rev: 28.apr.2021

side notes.

may as well dispose of all media‥?

As mentioned; whatever delivery form(s) media outlets come in, and whoever they work for, their goals are the same, and their tactics are more or less identical below the various surfaces. They are in it to sell their products and themself to the public, and how they go about it seems to be irrelevant as long as it works to their advantage.

The all-important “accuracy” and “honesty” are all too often “missing in action” when the news get served. Sad, but not unexpected, and in itself not worth spinning conspiracy theories around.

With good fact-checking and well-functioning “bullshit” filters, any selection of media outlets may work for end-users in need of real news and facts. The “trick” is to never let anyone else – professionals or amateurs – choose, tune, or in any way affect those personal filters and fact-checking algorithms.

The missing pieces are just that: “missing pieces”, and the stories they are missing from are simply incomplete … same as most, if not all, stories we are being told by anyone. No point in wasting time and energy on filling holes in stories, when one should focus on getting the conclusions right and figure out what, if anything, to use them for at a personal level.

We can not react sensibly to every single incident and news-alert anyway – no one has enough time and capacity, so why not intentionally limit our attention to what matters to us and ours, and let all else just pass? The world's population is close to 8 billion as we write the year 2021, and no single human can relate to all that may, and do, happen in the individual lives of all these people.
Our ability to rationalize away “less important” news alerts regardless of severity, is imperative for our sanity and personal wellbeing, and unless our reactions can have an immediate and positive impact on the incidents at hand, we may as well leave them out of the equation and keep on living our lives to the best of our abilities.

bigger words do not carry more value

How many big words that are used to present and sell a case, should be totally irrelevant to those of us who happen to listen. The norm is after all that “the more big and superfluous words that are being used, the less of value can be found behind them”, and the same goes for everything anyone try to sell us.

Differences between selling opinions – political and others, religious believes, drugs, shares, cars, and what not, are purely semantic with little to no effect on techniques and languages used. Keep that simple fact in mind when the big words start flowing from even the most eloquent speakers, and you may avoid being sucked into veritable wormholes without even the weakest scientific formulas and theories to prop them up.

science in news

Whenever “science” is mentioned in public news, one may as well switch to more entertaining news alerts or whatever. Not because there is anything wrong with science, but because real science is, at best, poorly presented by most non-scientific oriented media outlets.

If you are looking for holes in stories, you are sure to find a multitude of really big ones when the more profiled media personalities use bits and pieces of “science” to back up whatever it is they are trying to sell us. Same thing with all the politicized science we are being presented with all over the place.
Popular science sure has its places in public media, but not when reduced and transformed into “news”, “politically sellable”, and otherwise “conforming” formats.

news on social media

Most news on major social media platforms (like Facebook) is just repetitions of what has been released through other media, and can be treated as such. If followed by “warnings” and/or “corrections” they may be worth looking into to see if they carry anything of value, but otherwise for the most part not.

Kind of strange to see that the “independent” fact-checkers, and their masters, do not seem to grasp that the more they interfere, the more interesting visitors find the stuff the checkers do not approve of. It is human nature to be curious, and no official policies, platform rules or laws can change that.
And, there are always other platforms … some with more sane and just thought-police and rules than the major ones.

Other than that; social media platforms naturally act as “echo chambers”, “local initiative” and “troll-bait hangouts” rather than “news spreaders”, and as such are as useful or useless as the individual user wants them to be.