Of course, entities are not to be trusted. You have to sift through issues yourself, this is what an educated vigilant fellow does instead of blindly accepting particular groups as arbiters of truth.
It’s actually the opposite if you are thinking rationally. If all news are corrupted, how are you able to discern between what is real and what is fake? It’s not like you are an expert on all these fields, global issues and have time to fully analyze everything. Most likely you will then be choosing whatever fits your narrative.
If you want to do things properly you want reputable people and organizations to depend on.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. We all have to be aware of our own and every other entities bias. The easiest example of how important it is; is with racism in technology. Where technology isn’t made for for example afroamericans because the team who developed the technology didn’t have a diverse enough team to discover that their tech is actually formed for mostly white people, even though if the team had been given the choice would have rectefied it. But because of diversity wasn’t aware. Which also happens with news too.
What is a “reputable” people? How have you decided X people or groups are reputable, some kind of academic degree in journalism or ethics? Are you falling hook and sinker for their marketing? Are you trying to push the narrative that independent people are more biased than funded groups?
Well, I work with communication in my dayjob, so I’ll have more experience with media stuff than most people. But you should have learned this in high school most likely.
I knowledge some bias, yes. But not at the level the anarcho communists are arguing for. Like there are an incling of truth, but there is only so far you can drag it before it becomes loony toons.
I think I know very well how journalism works on the inside with some insights into it. As far as ethics, these funded groups and news agencies are the least ethical and the most manipulative.
Are you trying to push the narrative that independent people are more biased than funded news agencies and groups?
No, both independant and large news agencies can be reputable. It’s more about context, but larger entities and the employees will have a bigger responsibility in the public eye.
I’m not so convinced you are able to discern what independent news sources that you can have confidence in though.
EFF has been a most controversial entity, that kept its mouth shut during Camridge Analytica, so keep EFF to yourself.
An interesting narrative. There is hardly any organization or media you trust
Of course, entities are not to be trusted. You have to sift through issues yourself, this is what an educated vigilant fellow does instead of blindly accepting particular groups as arbiters of truth.
It’s actually the opposite if you are thinking rationally. If all news are corrupted, how are you able to discern between what is real and what is fake? It’s not like you are an expert on all these fields, global issues and have time to fully analyze everything. Most likely you will then be choosing whatever fits your narrative.
If you want to do things properly you want reputable people and organizations to depend on.
Its not necessarily about corruption, but every media (and every person) has their bias. Thats why we need critical thinking.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. We all have to be aware of our own and every other entities bias. The easiest example of how important it is; is with racism in technology. Where technology isn’t made for for example afroamericans because the team who developed the technology didn’t have a diverse enough team to discover that their tech is actually formed for mostly white people, even though if the team had been given the choice would have rectefied it. But because of diversity wasn’t aware. Which also happens with news too.
You’ve said the same things about the other side of stories you’re sharing on here.
I’ve said they were terrible
Thats subjective. If they really are so terrible, you should be able to find some objective arguments to support that claim.
What is a “reputable” people? How have you decided X people or groups are reputable, some kind of academic degree in journalism or ethics? Are you falling hook and sinker for their marketing? Are you trying to push the narrative that independent people are more biased than funded groups?
Well, I work with communication in my dayjob, so I’ll have more experience with media stuff than most people. But you should have learned this in high school most likely.
So you must know then that media outlets contain geopolitical bias?
I knowledge some bias, yes. But not at the level the anarcho communists are arguing for. Like there are an incling of truth, but there is only so far you can drag it before it becomes loony toons.
Strawmen fallacy, I’m not an anarcho communist.
I think I know very well how journalism works on the inside with some insights into it. As far as ethics, these funded groups and news agencies are the least ethical and the most manipulative.
Are you trying to push the narrative that independent people are more biased than funded news agencies and groups?
No, both independant and large news agencies can be reputable. It’s more about context, but larger entities and the employees will have a bigger responsibility in the public eye.
I’m not so convinced you are able to discern what independent news sources that you can have confidence in though.