Merged Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

RedIbis said:
So what does that say about NBC?
Click to expand...
That they know the difference between a serious evening news cast and a silly morning show?

And it probably got better ratings than the one where Al Roker got his cholesterol checked. Americans love freak shows.
 
When some REAL science produced by LEGITIMATE scientists, using REAL scientific method and approach, provides some REAL evidence suggesting the 9/11 narrrative as it stands is wrong, then, THEN, perhaps you will see the media move from scorn to something in between.

Would not hold my breath or buy ice skates for a trip to hell.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
When some REAL science produced by LEGITIMATE scientists, using REAL scientific method and approach, provides some REAL evidence suggesting the 9/11 narrrative as it stands is wrong, then, THEN, perhaps you will see the media move from scorn to something in between.
Click to expand...

Amen.

T.A.M. said:
Would not hold my breath or buy ice skates for a trip to hell.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either.
 
"hit piece" - what 911 truth calls a news article containing the truth about the crazy fantasies of 911 truth.

Is it mandatory in 911 truth to have a central IV for Kool-aid from Dr Thermite Jones?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Yes, Red Ibis. They're all "hit pieces" when they don't confirm your beliefs, aren't they?
Click to expand...

No, no, you've missed the point. What RedIbis is trying to say is that, if you ignore all the hit pieces, then the general tone of media articles on the truth movement is getting more neutral. When you want to prove a thesis, it's always convenient to be able to ignore all the evidence tha contradicts it.

Dave
 
This idea that 911 Truth is going mainstream is certainly getting a lot of milage. Take another look at the media we're talking about here. Inspite of the claim it's international media, much of the original article does not list international media. And what appears 'to international media' is only 'international' because it's not in the USA. In case you've forgotten, it wasn't the Washington Post. And the Washington Times is owned by a religious cult...in case you've forgotten.
 
RedIbis said:
No. The media is not a monolith. If the prevailing attitude used to be one of scorn among the many media reports, this attitude can slowly change, perhaps averaging out the coverage among the many stories that are published.

Here's a good example, this is coverage on a right wing media site of Jesse Ventura's appearance on NBC, discussing his new conspiracy theory book. The point of this example is not Ventura's credibility on this issue (though I'm pretty sure that's what debunkers will want to seize upon), my point is illustrated by a quote in this article:
Click to expand...

When the media said the Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind, it didn't make it real.

When the media said facilitated communication was real, it didn't make it real.

When the media said that "John of God" had magic powers, it didn't make it real.

Enough said.
 
aggle-rithm said:
When the media said the Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind, it didn't make it real.

When the media said facilitated communication was real, it didn't make it real.

When the media said that "John of God" had magic powers, it didn't make it real.

Enough said.
Click to expand...

Do you mean one writer in one article made such claims? Or is there a giant word spewing monster that holds one view and shoots out all news?
 
RedIbis said:
Do you mean one writer in one article made such claims? Or is there a giant word spewing monster that holds one view and shoots out all news?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: When it comes to wooish claims like this, different media outlets tend to march in lock-step. It's just like carmakers who watch each other and copy each other's styles. If they see one company having success with a certain model, they don't say, "screw that, I'm doing my own thing." They want some of that success, so they try to duplicate what their competitors are doing.

News media outlets do the same thing. If one magazine or network makes a goofy claim, and gets lots of positive response, then it would be foolish, from a business perspective, for its competitors to tell the news consumers that they're idiots by exposing the lie. In the domain of wooish claims, this is apparently seen as fairly harmless, since the claims are unfalsifiable. It would be another story if they published something that was blatantly false, but the lies inherent in wooish claims are subtle and require some education to reveal.

Hence the existence of JREF.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Here's the thing: When it comes to wooish claims like this, different media outlets tend to march in lock-step. It's just like carmakers who watch each other and copy each other's styles. If they see one company having success with a certain model, they don't say, "screw that, I'm doing my own thing." They want some of that success, so they try to duplicate what their competitors are doing.

News media outlets do the same thing. If one magazine or network makes a goofy claim, and gets lots of positive response, then it would be foolish, from a business perspective, for its competitors to tell the news consumers that they're idiots by exposing the lie. In the domain of wooish claims, this is apparently seen as fairly harmless, since the claims are unfalsifiable. It would be another story if they published something that was blatantly false, but the lies inherent in wooish claims are subtle and require some education to reveal.

Hence the existence of JREF.
Click to expand...

So is the "wooish claim" that the media marches in lock step, or is it your claim?
 
RedIbis said:
So is the "wooish claim" that the media marches in lock step, or is it your claim?
Click to expand...

Have you ever read of the boxer rebellion, and how it was supposedly triggered by papers trying to outdo each other with the story of the sale of the Chinese wall?
 
Toke said:
Have you ever read of the boxer rebellion, and how it was supposedly triggered by papers trying to outdo each other with the story of the sale of the Chinese wall?
Click to expand...

Incidents like these have make journalists more ethical about publishing lies that can be easily proven false. In the old days, newspapers made up fantastical stories all the time in an effort to sell more papers. Today, they allow someone else to make up the stories ("I can bend spoons with my mind!", "I can heal people by talking to ghost doctors!", "9/11 was an inside job!"), and they simply report on them.

Generally, the more the public WANTS to believe the story, the more uncritical the media is about it.

So, I think if more people WANTED to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you would see more sympathetic coverage of it. However, no amount of wanting something to be true, regardless of the number of people involved, can actually make something true.

I realize I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but I thought RedIbis might get something out of it.
 
aggle-rithm said:
If you want specific examples, I can provide them. The phenomenon is well known among skeptics.
Click to expand...

So you've succumbed to the woo when you said:

News media outlets do the same thing. If one magazine or network makes a goofy claim, and gets lots of positive response, then it would be foolish, from a business perspective, for its competitors to tell the news consumers that they're idiots by exposing the lie.
Click to expand...

You also think that the media is a monolith that "tend to march in lock step"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom