Champuckett

I don't know, depends on what books you are referring to, but asking those questions is a good start though.

Yes, because this isn't about left vs right. That's what is expected of us to fall into. We should not be focusing on adjusting more to the left or the right, but abandoning the entire premise altogether, especially when we have discussions about this. I understand this is not something that happens over night or even in a year, but maybe over a decade, perhaps. I stated what could be done to improve things, which would be to begin questioning the narrative, and eventually discarding the narrative. Throw out all of the establishment talking points we have, whether left or right, all the appropriately corresponding discussions that follow, and start thinking and acting for ourselves and our families, without interference from media corporations, whether they are right or left. Discussions that should be happening here: are we following a narrative? Why are we supposed to be talking about this most recent topic? Do I rely too much on corporate media the primary source for news stories? If so, what intent does this group of media corporations have for us? How do we move forward without the corporate media that we are used to? How will the affect of the media impact the lives of my children knowing the news media is as corrupted as it is? What sacrifices will I have to make to live without corporate media? Will my life improve for myself or my family if I cease listening to corporate media? These questions just begin to touch the tip of the iceberg. These may not be questions that you are interested in asking, but you asked me what questions you thought you should be asking. There some are. This is not a definitive list or anything close.

Yes, we all are raised in different environments with differing levels of exposure to media and all of these effects by our environment can make a variety of impact on who we are. But we all end up being served the same media exposure whether it's 2 minutes of radio here, or 10 hours of television there, or 30 minutes of internet time there. The messages all are the same and run concurrently. I'm unsure why it is feeble, but yes, education has a part to play in all of this as well. I'm sorry you think I am trolling. I am not trolling. I've been a member of this board for many years, approaching a decade. And saying things like this is adding weight to my original argument in my first post on the matter, that disparaging things may eventually be said to keep the majority opinion in place and to escort minority opinions out. I understand you may not see that this is what you are doing, but it's unfortunately what you have just done. We can keep things perfectly civil, which is what I am making sure happens from my end. I'm opening up a new discussion that had not previously been taking place here. Participants disagree with that assertion. That's fine. I will continue ahead stating my case.

Yeah, and I made sure to point that out, that there is not a CNN panel lookalike situation happening here for the most part, but the issues are ultimately being talked about in further detail with more in depth analysis. The question then is, why is the news covering these particular stories, and why are we talking about the issue that they are laying before us. Have you ever asked yourself either of these questions. I realize if you are a liberal orientated thinker, you may wonder why Fox News on a nearly daily basis covers the stories they do. Why not extend that critical thought to the very news that you are consuming for yourself. Maybe you do, maybe the group does, I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing stories being talked about that the news first covered on a weekly, almost daily basis, and I'm not seeing much questioning as to why the news is even getting us to focus on these topics for any particular topic. I do not think these events shape our world as much as we would like to think. I think we are told that they do, and we pontificate about how they do, but I think they are doing something else that is far more sinister and divisive in nature, than simply existing as a current event, a talking point that appears worthy of further and deeper digging in discussion.

Yes. I have not given my opinion on news bits and political stances of the day. I have, however, given my opinion on plenty of topics regarding news and how the media operates. Is it a requirement for me to give my opinion on the topics that you demand that I give. I don't feel it is, and I am sorry that I ring hollow in part because of this perceived issue. I think I am challenging people plenty to do better in terms of what they think about the media, and the role the narrative plays in forcing us to adhere to the same general talking points. That does not of course mean I will have any success by any metric of measurement. If you feel it important to challenge participants on a political/story of the day level, then by all means, have at it. I'm choosing to challenge in other areas that does not focus specifically on the political, but on the reasons behind the political discourse and narrative that the majority tends to follow. It is possible that I do not, on a personal level, feel that politics are necessary or are useful in any way to anyone here or inside the country and may serve other purposes such as division and preoccupation. This is why I leave it to you and others to take on those battles if you wish, but I will not personally be getting involved in those at this time.

I also agree, it is impossible to make news coverage entirely unbiased. I don't think we are ever going to see that, as long as we have someone deciphering information for us and then summarizing it for our consumption. It's possible we can decrease bias in order to do better by looking at the raw data ourselves, but it feels like we are a long ways off from making that a reality. Until then, yeah, striving to improve on cherry picking talking points might restore a moderate amount of confidence again into people giving us news. With that said, I strongly lean towards deliberate over unintentional when doing a quick survey back through history. I doubt we have researchers or reporters on the ground in nearly 100% of cases doing what they can to subvert the story to meet the desired narrative, rather, I think it's the people at the top who choose which stories do or do not get to see the light of day. The same people that are responsible for who is and who is not hired based on desirable characteristics and perspectives. A substantial amount of what we know or believe to be true likely never was, because we didn't have a minority group as large as it is now, questioning the authority and credibility of news for most of the 20th century and before. We have fortunately ramped up efforts on a daily basis in recent times, and I think a lot of the facade is being revealed for the first time now in meaningful ways. Some are understandably uncomfortable with this as is it playing out.

I suppose that is debatable whether it's a microcosm for life itself, but more specifically, I find it is a microcosm for the internet at large. I did not seek out this website and try to set up camp and start some rabble rousing in a random way. I've been here for what feels like 6 or 7 years. I don't comment on Twins related topics as often as others, but I do check out what the pulse of the fanbase is on a pretty regular basis. It was only after the 2016 election occurred that I started filtering down into the Sports Bar section of the site to see what was going on down here and that's when I found some of these threads. The world got turned upside down for a while there and I feel we are all still trying to sort out what happened. I'm under no illusion that I'm going to change the habits or status quo of the participants here in even the most minor way. I am, however, interested in talking about some of these issues in an honest way, and exploring the topic with board. We'll see where it goes, I'm learning a lot.

Yes, it was expected. I do appreciate that you can see it as well though. Thank you for the insightful comments regardless.

You assumed I was white. And you assume I am not a minority. I'm unsure what my skin color or race status have to do with the discussion at hand. I understand Brock's post and what he/she meant by it. And I responded accordingly understanding what was being said.

We can agree to disagree then. Fox is a big part of the problem as well, because, you could say, they were the first test case honeypot to attract conservative/republicans away from establishment media, as a new home where their views would be more represented. The fact is, they are no better than any of the rest of the establishment media, have the same general beliefs as the establishment media at the end of the day, operate with the same mechanisms as establishment media, but pretends to be a beacon of safety for disaffected conservatives. They are in effect, establishment media. And I made sure to point out in the post you were responding to the fact that I was not singling out this board with the Kraft example. And I understand you did not imply I did either, just to make it clear for others that will be reading these responses.

Correct, which is why I offered for others to google on their own time, if they have spare time, because I don't want to link a bunch of sites that are perpetuating the problem. I doubt people are going to respect a link I give if it comes from an independent/alternate source, or from perhaps, from Reddit or another community speaking about the issue, so it comes down to a case of "d***ed if you do, d***ed if you don't. But it's very possible I assumed too much. I searched for it, and the top hits were WPost, NYtimes, BBC, and the Guardian, all with questionable establishment based backgrounds. But yeah, they have more than a few skeletons in their closet, including contracts with the CIA to build a data cloud through Amazon Web Services.

Thanks for that. It's sad that I, or others, are being considered an interloper(s), but it is expected. I'm a fellow Minnesotan, that happens to have a differing opinion than the majority does here.

You are right, both political parties are involved in being lemmings, and Republicans certainly don't get a pass. And you are right again, tribalism is arising, because those that felt disaffected and did not have a voice through either major political party or any of the establishment media, so they flocked elsewhere. You could even say the Bernie movement was another one of these areas that people flocked away to, but is that movement really an alternate movement seeking to bust outside of the system, or just a way of corralling the people into another part of the controlled narrative.

Sounds about right. Just addressing it for what it really is, entertainment, is all that needs to be done. And being aware that we are on a daily basis, made to believe these are the issues we should be focusing on. Why should we be focusing on them, what about this information over here or over there. As long as it is consistently questioned and not accepted as the focus, I think it's a healthy start. And yes, dropping 100% of the daily load of negativity and fear consumption, and working on yourself, and your family, and your community, will prove better in the long run, for everyone.

Great question. The most basic response I can give you is, if there is a will, there is a way. To expand on that, we have accepted, since we were old enough to understand, that the media needs to be centrally located, with a primary hub/office with various affiliate sites spread out over large swathes of territory. This is one method information collection can occur, but there are newer ways that are coming into existence as we speak. There are many independent journalists that are not owned or operated or in any way affiliated with corporations or corporate based financial backing that are putting in their own time and resources to uncovering truth. They are self funded and do most of the work by themselves. The reduction in potential conflicts of interest is what keeps them afloat, because there is a market for this now due to the overwhelming corruption of the establishment media. This is just the beginning of a growing trend of newer sources of news using alternate methods versus the standard method of information collection. Just because they are doing this right now in 2019 does not mean these operations will still be viable in say, 2030. Now that it is easier to build your own studio at minimal cost, use your own cameras and production also at minimal cost, individuals are slowly making news more decentralized and self operated. I have no idea what it will look like 10 years from now, but I'm guessing no one really does since the landscape is changing so fast. Breitbart and similar websites are dinosaurs just like the rest of the establishment media. They are trendy these days because Trump established his own kind of media conglomeration indirectly to combat the establishment media complex, but they both operate under similar guidelines and rules and should therefore both be questioned, disputed, and discarded in the same way.

I like this line of thought and agree with you for the most part. There is something to that, isn't there. It then begs multiple questions, how did these wars that started this potential destabilization begin, was the media complicit, was our government complicit, which president(s) were occupying the office when each of these wars started, why was the media silent when some of these wars began, why isn't the media answering any of these questions or even asking them.

Thanks for the correction.

But you were raised under the same system with the same education as most here on the board. And the influence of the media in your daily life over what your thoughts and beliefs are can't be understated. You may not feel it had or has an impact, but if you grew up in this country, it most likely did, unless you were home schooled. All of this took a role in who you are today and what you believe.

To those that like the BBC, as others beyond Pseudo have mentioned there like for it: Are you aware of Jimmy Saville and how the BBC went to great efforts to cover up the crimes of him raping and sometimes killing over 500 children over many decades. You can google for more information which won't take more than a few seconds, but the coverup by the BBC was staggering and the responsible parties, mainly Mark Thompson, are all still working within the establishment media, mainly the New York Times. Maybe this is something that can be easily dismissed, but it would seem wrong to based on those hundreds of children's lives that were probably permanently damaged or ruined in some way. I'm only linking to this to get things going on the topic in the hopes this will spur at least minor investigation on the part of at least 1 person reading this. Maybe it will not, but it's worth a shot I suppose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/?utm_term=.3df4a8bfaab5

Thanks for entering the discussion. The point is, that these are non-news news items that we are occupying ourselves with. I'm not singling out this board with the forthcoming example, just making this point that there are a lot more things out there happening in the world, and we are instead concerning ourselves with, for example, how a sports franchise owner was using prostitute and we are spending more than a weeks worth of time focusing on it. That is not news, it's largely irrelevant information. Why are we taking what the national media is concerned about, and having our own variations of what they are talking about here. I understand media talking points may not be thrown back and forth here as if we were on some kind of CNN panel with opposing sides. That's what my point is. If we want to admit to ourselves that it's purely entertainment, then that's respectable at least, because it is unfortunate truth and spending almost any time on these issues is getting us off track and away from issues that we should be more concerned about or at least have a minimal amount of interest in.

I think it is very possible I am being questioned out of defensiveness. And it was expected before I started participating here in this thread. It's natural to have this reaction when a challenge or a threat is felt to the status quo, even if said threat can be stamped out as quickly as it started. This was one of my points in the very first post I made in this thread was. That there would be an attempt by everyone to have majority rule outweigh the minority polemic, and this is now how things are playing out. You don't poke a hornets nest without expecting the hornets to sting, and I think that's what we are seeing play out here. This is why it's possible it could be beneficial to have some of these discussions as a 1 on 1 basis in pm's, because there are more opportunities for growth, from both parties, when there is not the basic human need to use numbers to overwhelm opposition. And we can still do that, hopefully. There is an illusion that there are alternate voices and that's one of the primary points I have put forth before the members of the thread here. Some of the participants are admitting that the narrowing of potential arguments which is responsible for shaping most of our political discourse is in fact happening, mainly Psuedo. And although he does not let this deter him from participating in the thread, he was able to quote one of more famous modern day philosophers that has previously pointed that this is in fact occurring. We can agree to disagree on this point, which I was happy to do many pages back, but simply saying I am wrong and leaving it at that, is not going to help any further examination of this point. But I'm pointing this out, because you are not speaking for everyone on the matter. I'm glad there is at least some understanding that this is happening, and would love to move onward from here. You are absolutely correct, news has, since the beginning of time, been used in this way. It's important to admit this and maybe we should discuss why there has been a reluctance to question this media, but instead reinforce it on a daily/weekly basis by linking the news of the day from the very same sources that we are increasingly becoming aware of are distorting what is really happening and partitioning the information load so that we only receive the bits that they want us to see while the bits that they do not are thrown in the waste bin. So knowing this, we can at a minimum be questioning the primary way that our countrymen and citizens of the world, are getting their news. Maybe you are, and if you are that is great. And if that is true, maybe that can be used to help understand my point about a single same narrative being followed. The news can exist on more platforms than what we now know of today as the corporate news. I think we have made some progress based off what you have stated. You can correct me anywhere I go wrong. You believe that news has and can be corrupted or spun in ways to benefit certain parties. Great. Then taking the leap that corporate and state run news are our only avenues for news is not something I can agree with. I think we are seeing an alternate news form out of the ashes of the standard news we have all become accustomed to since each of our births. The corporate and state runs news will eventually die due to the interests of the state and of the news agencies outweighing the interests of the people, who are becoming more aware of the failures of the current system and the intentional misleading of the controlling parties of the news. Therefore, I do believe it is not only feasible that this old type of news is dropped, but a certainty, and we all begin the process in earnest of embracing new variations of news collecting that are more decentralized and on the ground, rather than in the centralized office space where but a few controlling parties have reign over the information hundreds of millions of people are receiving on a daily basis. If we want to haggle over the definitions of what it means to have news in the first place, I'm happy to have a discussion on that.

I'm headed to bed. It has been enjoyable and stimulating to hear from you all on this. I hope you understand I'm not coming here with the intent to attack anyone. I simply want to talk about some of these issues that I did not feel were either being talked about or addressed. I'm willing to talk to anyone in private messages about any of these topics at length or for clarification's sake. Let's see where we can go from here.

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC and NPR are both state owned by their respective countries. The incentive then for polishing up mistakes and celebrating successes by both of these institutions would be increased to a more aggressive extent than corporate run media coverage of the state.

I would say more accurately, my point is complete abandonment of major media. Complete. Total. Adhering to it for even a minor amount is dangerous for everyone. If that sounds shocking, then that might have something, whether minor, moderate, or major, to do with the apparent mud surrounding everything I have laid out.

How am I dedicated to perpetuating this narrative. I'm here in this thread, pointing out that it is being followed and that a majority of discussions are revolving around it, and that we all need to examine this in the hope, that in time an end comes to following it.