European Civilization Headed for Extinction?

[deaf tuner]

and I have seen investigative journalists image-polish dictatorships and theocracy, your point is ?

My point is that tomar's "... You simply cant make a smallish group representative of the population in all its infinite variations (sex, religion, weight, occupation, age, hair color, skin color, IQ, physical ability, looks etc.. etc..
... period... is a sane approach, that has to be applied in any domein. Media included.

So yes, it's illogical to build up an entire theory (moreover, a conviction) on media basing only on one part of it, only one "line". Besides illogicity, it's simply false.

And also, no, it's not the journalists promoting the fake journalism. It's us. If we buy the fake because it's comforting our convictions, we'll have more fake. If we ignore real journalism, we'll have less and less real journalism.

 

[Iraq Bruin]

please do not include me in that "we" , I take everything with a grain of salt, I am not going to believe "news" just because they confirm something I think I know, I'd rather source a good fact to back what I think or say (opinion).

It is not a conviction, this is not a court sending people to jail, it is an opinion, I happen to trust the media very little and think they do not deserve publicity or income because of me when I can control that. I mainly access media for caricature-browsing (AKA reading their so called reporting since I know their opinions already) and just in case they end up BEGRUDGINGLY reporting something while inserting an opinion as to how it is minimal or does not detract from their main point about said-topic.

it is even funnier when they fear monger about something one week/month and then fear monger the opposite the next week/month, all while maintaining fidelity to the core ideological basis for perpetuating said fear mongering, it is a car-salesman trick.

Being cynical can be good

 

[deaf tuner]

please do not include me in that "we" , I take everything with a grain of salt, I am not going to believe "news" just because they confirm something I think I know, I'd rather source a good fact to back what I think or say (opinion).

It is not a conviction, this is not a court sending people to jail, it is an opinion, I happen to trust the media very little and think they do not deserve publicity or income because of me when I can control that. I mainly access media for caricature-browsing (AKA reading their so called reporting since I know their opinions already) and just in case they end up BEGRUDGINGLY reporting something while inserting an opinion as to how it is minimal or does not detract from their main point about said-topic.

it is even funnier when they fear monger about something one week/month and then fear monger the opposite the next week/month, all while maintaining fidelity to the core ideological basis for perpetuating said fear mongering, it is a car-salesman trick.

Being cynical can be good

I don't include "You" in anything. I say "we" as we're all concerned, and as none of us is perfect.

On the cynical, I disagree: it isn't cynicism that it's needed, it's critical reasoning what is needed.

 

[Iraq Bruin]

I don't include "You" in anything. I say "we" as we're all concerned, and as none of us is perfect.

On the cynical, I disagree: it isn't cynicism that it's needed, it's critical reasoning what is needed.

well, that too.

The issue is that reasoning is supposed to be rational not emotional.

Emotions sells, rationality does not.

 

[deaf tuner]

...
Emotions sells, rationality does not.

Ok.

But then, one keeps it shut.

If we're fed up with pseudo-jurnaliasm, we cannot complain, as we're not interested in buying reason but emotions.

If we're fed up with demagogues running our lives, we cannot complain, as we're voting with our bellies, not with our brains.

 

[Iraq Bruin]

I do not understand the post.

 

[deaf tuner]

I do not understand the post.

I'm tired, bro. It's maybe odd, but sometimes I get tired of this stuff.

Some other time for an explanation.

 

[Iraq Bruin]

That is rather simplistic in my humble opinion. Uncontested media is not different from uncontested government, simply bad.

If they insist on good vs bad as being the option, then I am not going to side with that. And yes, PC is bad.

 

[deaf tuner]

That is rather simplistic in my humble opinion. Uncontested media is not different from uncontested government, simply bad.

If they insist on good vs bad as being the option, then I am not going to side with that. And yes, PC is bad.

IDK if is addressed to me. If yes:

- I didn't talked about "uncontested media", on the contrary. I talked about labeling media, about double standards in judging media, aso. "They're all liars" (be it about journalists or politicians) is also a form of "uncontested", don't You think?

- Who is "they"? What part of the media is insisting on good vs bad as being the option? Is it all the media, is it some, is it few?

- What's PC, bro? Last time I checked, "PC" was created by a bunch of German and some other European Jewish Marxists in the 1920's, having as final goal the destruction of Western Civilization.

if it wasn't addressed to me, just click "ignore" ?

 

[Iraq Bruin]

Uncontested means unchallenged and uncriticized.

Most of the media are that way.

PC is like an old world forced pleasantries, it looking the other way lest one is offended, PC is pretentious sugar coating when it does not fit a desired pattern, it is unhealthy being said as healthy ...etc.

I am not going to ignore you, talking is good and challenging.