If we can't trust National Geographics And Discovery Channel ... what can we trust?

[JoeEllison]

I'm not postulating a conspiracy in this thread, Joe. I'm simply noting that NG and DC did a really bad job of covering all the facts in the Ron Brown crash case. Why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that? What do you fear?

And Joe, if you really want to debunk the Ron Brown accusations then you need to go to the thread discussing it in the Conspiracy forum. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 . And then deal with the specific facts that NG and DC left out of their documentaries ... rather than ignore them like NG and DC did ... and all the rest of the naysayers did. But you're not going to attempt that, are you?

Why bother trying to break you of your paranoid delusions? The tale you tell in this thread is insane enough for me. I'm sure the more detail you add, the more loony it sounds.

Again, who would create an elaborate plane crash conspiracy, but also shoot the intended victim? That's stupid, and you embrace that sort of stupidity. Is it just insane hatred towards Bill Clinton, or a more generalized paranoia?

 

[slingblade]

No, I think the right word is "trust". Most people watching the NG and DC *documentaries* will form an opinion about what happened in the Ron Brown crash based on a certain degree of trust in the source. Misplaced perhaps.

You mean as you just did with those "most people?" Because I don't see any cites or surveys, facts or evidence...just your opinion based on small sample and limited observation with a bit of various biases thrown in.

Among the errors: you seem to have assumed a certain percentage of posters at this forum have the same depth of interest as you in certain matters.

It might interest you to know that I have given the whole Ron Brown matter so much thought that I had to go look it up. The name Ron Brown rang absolutely no bells for me. Knowing Wiki isn't the world's most reliable source, I still went there and skimmed the article about him. Oh, yeah, I vaguely remember that, now.

And I don't care.

You see, I commit the opposing error: I believe or assume my government would just as soon lie to me as tell me the truth. I don't trust the barstids any farther than I can throw them. That's because, in general, I have observed that it takes a certain type to even want to be in politics, and I am not of that type. I am often honest to the point of my own detriment. I see politicians in general as folks who don't mind playing a bit fast and loose with the truth, if it serves their ends. I don't, after painful personal experience, tend to trust that sort of person, until and unless I'm given adequate reason to do so.

But key to the Ron Brown issue, and others of its ilk: I simply do not know, and probably cannot know, what happened. I am an outsider and will remain one. I must form an opinion, or not, based solely on whatever information is shared, and I know I don't have it all. What responsible opinion can I then form? This one:

I don't know what happened, but knowing human nature, I will say I think anything is possible, though not necessarily probable. I think the more probable explanation is the simplest one: the plane crashed due to pilot error. The conspiracy one is highly complicated and involves a lot of people by necessity. It's possible, but it's not probable.

Do you see, though, that I have at least allowed for that possibility? Since I cannot know, however, and likely will never know, what good is the opinion? Not much, really, and after this post, I will likely forget all about Ron Brown again.

As to the point of the OP: I spent many years believing everything I read and everything I saw on TV that was presented as non-fiction. I've grown up a bit, and now realize I must take all of it with a healthy grain of salt. TV is not there to inform. TV is there to sell things. And today, I have a very modern reference system very near my TV...a lot closer than my local library.

So, the Discovery Channel is on in the next room. Let's say this morning they had a show about Bigfoot. I don't pay much attention. I've already looked into that, have debunked it, and while it may irritate me they seem to be presenting it as fact, they aren't suckering me.

The next show is about Columbus. I don't know a whole lot about him, and maybe the show tells me a factlet I'd never heard. But look, I'm sitting in front of my computer! Ok, plug the terms into Google. Three universities all have essays on the very subject. And the essays have sources. I follow them. After about an hour of searching, I conclude that the factlet I heard on the Columbus program appears to have a great deal of substance to it, from a variety of sources. I can accept it, provisionally.

Now, Fergle forfend I'd ever try to deliberately make a "True Skeptic" argument. But I think, in my opinion, that this provisional acceptance is part, perhaps a key part, of the practice of skepticism. We can't know everything. Frankly, we can't know very much. But we do form opinions based on our limited knowledge. I feel that a skeptical thinker is one who doesn't then close the door and nail it shut. He or she leaves it open a crack, just in case a stray factoid wanders past. He or she is at least willing to consider new and/or opposing information if and when it comes along.

Trust is not really an important factor. The three universities I mentioned...how do I know they're telling the truth? I don't. That's why I follow the sources from the essays. How do I know the sources are telling the truth? I don't. That's why I continue to search. And even still, I may be following a twisted path of lies and half-truths. But all I can do is use my judgment, my past experience, and my intellect to form a provisional opinion, which I am willing to change, if need be.

To me, that's skepticism. Trust need not apply.

 

[BeAChooser]

The tale you tell in this thread is insane enough for me.

What tale? All I've done here is note some facts that weren't included in the NG and DC documentaries. Facts that I think should have been included. Such as the fact that they lost communication with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles out from the airport. That's you can't even acknowledge THAT tells us *something* about you, Joe.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't see any cites or surveys, facts or evidence...just your opinion based on small sample and limited observation with a bit of various biases thrown in.

I think you have to agree that since the mainstream media completely ignored the facts I mentioned (for example, they never told the public there was a military photographer and military pathologists who were voicing concern about the nature of the wound in Brown's head and calling for an autopsy), most of the public is probably still totally unaware of those facts. They formed their opinion about the Brown crash based on what they read and saw in the mainstream media. That would include what they saw on NG and DC. I don't see the need to cite surveys to prove this. This is obvious to any remotely rational person.

Among the errors: you seem to have assumed a certain percentage of posters at this forum have the same depth of interest as you in certain matters.

Hey ... I didn't force you to come to this thread and post.

And I don't care.

You don't care that a Secretary of Commerce and at least 33 others may have been murdered in order to cover up treasonous activities by the Clinton administration? What do you *care* about?

But key to the Ron Brown issue, and others of its ilk: I simply do not know, and probably cannot know, what happened.

But you can know what the photographer and pathologists said. And what Nolanda Hill said. And all the other facts that I listed above that the NG and DC *documentaries* ignored. That in the very least is useful information when forming opinions about other government and politician actions.

I think the more probable explanation is the simplest one: the plane crashed due to pilot error.

Well don't you think that simple explanation should be able to explain why the airport lost communication with the plane when it was still 7 to 8 miles out?

The conspiracy one is highly complicated and involves a lot of people by necessity.

This isn't complicated. All they would have had to do was cut communication with the plane and spoof the pilot into flying into a mountain in bad weather. And then make sure Brown was dead by having someone get there first. And then keep investigators from discovering the truth by ordering that they skip the SIB and there be no autopsy. Doesn't take more than a handful of people in the right positions.

Do you see, though, that I have at least allowed for that possibility? Since I cannot know, however, and likely will never know, what good is the opinion?

Actually you can know. All that needs to happen is that they exhume Brown's body and perform an autopsy with pathologists we can trust. If it turns up nothing, then we can all sleep peacefully. If it turns up a bullet wound ...

As to the point of the OP: I spent many years believing everything I read and everything I saw on TV that was presented as non-fiction. I've grown up a bit, and now realize I must take all of it with a healthy grain of salt. TV is not there to inform. TV is there to sell things. And today, I have a very modern reference system very near my TV...a lot closer than my local library.

But you are the exception to the rule. Which doesn't bode well for a free society, I fear.

To me, that's skepticism. Trust need not apply.

I agree. But most people aren't skeptics. Which again doesn't bode well for a free society.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I saw a "documentary" on the Discovery Channel that argued how Sirhan Sirhan couldn't possibly have killed Robert Kennedy, but at the same time claimed that he did kill him, but only because the CIA hypnotised him. I saw another fine program that claimed that the US military somehow made a ship invisible during World War II, but when it reappeared, the sailors were somehow melded into the structure of the boat. I could go on about the inane drivel these channels often put forth as "factual" (the Roswell mystery-mongering nonsense,anyone?), but the point is not to take any of it too seriously. I swear, the conspiracy crackpots they feature on those programs would argue that sunrise is an illusion foisted on the public by a shadow government to manipulate profit margins for the power companies.

 

[Corsair 115]

Both the NG and Discovery channels, as well as the History Channel, have progressively gotten more sensationalist and less diligent in the realm of using verifiable, reliable, and realistic information. This could be a product of the channels themselves or it can be that the production companies providing these channels with material have dropped to a lowest-common-denominator target audience, but it's an unfortunate reality with the channels.

I feel compelled to point out that Mayday is a Discovery Channel Canada production. Though they share the same branding, the Discovery Channel as it exists in Canada is not a direct clone of its American counterpart. While there are plenty of programs which are imported from Discovery Channel in the U.S,, Discovery Channel Canada also has its own original show creations.

The same is true for our version of The History Channel, which is called History Television. Though in this case it has no connection to the American channel and is an entirely separate entity.

 

[slingblade]

I think you have to agree

I need to stop you right here. I don't, in fact, have to agree with any of it, since I have not seen the shows in question, and likely won't. I don't watch a lot of TV, really. So, not having seen them, I can't agree with any of what follows, out of ignorance. Sorry.

Hey ... I didn't force you to come to this thread and post.

No, the title piqued my interest. Who said I was forced, and who said I would know this is a "Ron Brown was murdered" thread by the title?

You misdirected, you see, both in the title and in your opening and closing statements, the latter of which I quote:

So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust?

My answer goes hand-in-hand with your next question:

You don't care that a Secretary of Commerce and at least 33 others may have been murdered in order to cover up treasonous activities by the Clinton administration? What do you *care* about?

I thought we were talking somewhat more about trusting sources than we were about Ron Brown. Pardon me for not paying closer attention.

I don't care about Ron Brown in the sense that it doesn't directly and immediately impact me in the same way my current personal problems are directly and immediately impacting me. I do care that a lot of people died. If they died by malfeasance, I'd think it good if the perpetrators were caught and dealth with. And if it happened, I think it's a horrible thing, the perps horrible people, and damn, what a cruel old world it continues to prove to be.

What else do you want from me?

I've got to figure how to keep this roof over my head, gas in the truck, food on the table. I'm not doing at all well at this, and it has me pretty concerned, along with several other things. I simply don't have the luxury (and yeah, I do consider it a luxury) to worry about what the higher-ups have been doing to people. I'll think about protesting and demanding when my worries become manageable again. Sorry.

But you can know what the photographer and pathologists said. And what Nolanda Hill said. And all the other facts that I listed above that the NG and DC *documentaries* ignored. That in the very least is useful information when forming opinions about other government and politician actions.

Except, I don't really form more than casual opinions about governments and politicians. Life's made me apathetic. The bad guys win more often than I'd like. C'est la vie.

And anyway, you just repeated what I've already said. I can only know what other people, people not me, are saying. But people can say anything! Evidence can be lost, twisted, pulled out of its context...I wasn't there. I don't know. I'm not directly connnected to the event, and if its ripples have reached out to touch me personally in some way, they're undetectable to me. I'm not in the mood to start expending a lot of energy researching this possible conspiracy and cover-up. I've got other things to do, and honestly, I should be doing them, rather than posting all this.

Well don't you think that simple explanation should be able to explain why the airport lost communication with the plane when it was still 7 to 8 miles out?

Beats me. I've little knowledge about such things.

This isn't complicated. All they would have had to do was cut communication with the plane and spoof the pilot into flying into a mountain in bad weather. And then make sure Brown was dead by having someone get there first. And then keep investigators from discovering the truth by ordering that they skip the SIB and there be no autopsy. Doesn't take more than a handful of people in the right positions.

Actually you can know. All that needs to happen is that they exhume Brown's body and perform an autopsy with pathologists we can trust. If it turns up nothing, then we can all sleep peacefully. If it turns up a bullet wound ...

Then I'll be properly scandalized, angry, and sad for a few minutes, and go back to stringing my beads and trying to put food on the table somehow.

But you are the exception to the rule. Which doesn't bode well for a free society, I fear.

Oh, well. With any luck, this "free" society will find a way to employ me, as soon as I find a way to walk out my door without shaking and throwing up.

I agree. But most people aren't skeptics. Which again doesn't bode well for a free society.

Not sure why that deserves a smile, but from me, it's getting a shrug.

Okay, okay, back to making beadwork. Sheesh, tyrants.

 

[BeAChooser]

... I have not seen the shows in question, and likely won't. I don't watch a lot of TV, really. So, not having seen them, I can't agree with any of what follows, out of ignorance. Sorry.

Ok. Why bother to even take part in this thread?

No, the title piqued my interest. Who said I was forced, and who said I would know this is a "Ron Brown was murdered" thread by the title?

But still, you weren't forced to post. Once you found it was a Ron Brown thread you could have just gone on about your merry way.

You misdirected, you see, both in the title and in your opening and closing statements

No, I didn't. I didn't make this thread about the Ron Brown conspiracy ... those who joined in the discussion did. I merely wished to point out that NG and DC did not cover the entire story in their *documentary*. And perhaps discuss the implications of that.

Quote:
I thought we were talking somewhat more about trusting sources than we were about Ron Brown. Pardon me for not paying closer attention.

We are. That's why I asked what do you care about.

What else do you want from me?

I think I'm satisfied with your answers. You best get back to bead stringing.

 

[slingblade]

Ok. Why bother to even take part in this thread?

I wanted to. It gets lonely and mind-stifling, sitting in this chair day after day after day, seeing no one, going nowhere. Like I said, the title piqued my interest.

But still, you weren't forced to post. Once you found it was a Ron Brown thread you could have just gone on about your merry way.

So you aren't really interested in sources, and whether you can or should trust them? Why did you frame your argument that way?

No, I didn't. I didn't make this thread about the Ron Brown conspiracy ... those who joined in the discussion did. I merely wished to point out that NG and DC did not cover the entire story in their *documentary*. And perhaps discuss the implications of that.

A hair disingenuous, don't you think? I say that, because my initial response about sources and whether you can trust them rather got tossed out the window once you realized I don't give a fat rat's behind about the story itself. I mean, you pretty much had a "ZOMG, I've just seen granny with her knickers down!" reaction when I said I don't care about Ron Brown. So come on, quit waffling. Is your question about trusting TV shows, or is it about the evil meanies who may have killed some people?

Yes, it can be about both, but you seem to be waffling harder than IHoP.

We are. That's why I asked what do you care about.

Ah, ok. Here's my answer then: "I don't care about the same things you do, but they still let me stay on the planet, can you imagine???"

I think I'm satisfied with your answers. You best get back to bead stringing.

Frankly, I've seen better "snide" by caterpillars. You need practice, mate.

 

[BeAChooser]

So you aren't really interested in sources, and whether you can or should trust them?

I don't how you came to that conclusion.

I say that, because my initial response about sources and whether you can trust them rather got tossed out the window once you realized I don't give a fat rat's behind about the story itself.

Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source? I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important. You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic. I pointed out that most people are not skeptics so again whether we can trust a source is important. The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

I mean, you pretty much had a "ZOMG, I've just seen granny with her knickers down!" reaction when I said I don't care about Ron Brown.

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown. I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story. I think when you declared out of the blue that you didn't care about the Ron Brown or the circumstances of his death, you were just asking to get questioned about that. And now you object because you got what you apparently wanted?

 

[JoeEllison]

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown. I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

What is "left out" is the conspiracy theory stuff... seems to me like they probably included just the facts, and left out the idiocy. I could be wrong, but based on simple common sense I'm probably closer to correct than you are.

 

[BeAChooser]

What is "left out" is the conspiracy theory stuff... seems to me like they probably included just the facts, and left out the idiocy. I could be wrong, but based on simple common sense I'm probably closer to correct than you are.

You are and anyone with the least bit of common sense can prove you are simply by looking into the lists of facts I noted that they left out. They will find that indeed a military photographer and military pathologists did raise concerns about the nature of the wound and call for an autopsy. They will find that indeed the Air Force did skip the SIB portion of the normal crash investigation for the first time in its history (other than one clear cut instance of friendly fire downing a plane). They will find that indeed Ron Brown was in serious legal trouble at the time of his death and that Nolanda Hill did testify under oath that he told Clinton he was going to turn states evidence and wasn't scheduled to be on that plane until after he did that. Anyone with the least bit of common sense will look beyond the end of their nose rather than imitate you. And then they will ask, why didn't NG and DC (as well as the rest of the mainstream media) report any of that?

 

[JoeEllison]

You are and anyone with the least bit of common sense can prove you are simply by looking into the lists of facts I noted that they left out.

You call them facts. Reasonable people who get to make TV shows don't call them facts. I'll go with them over your obviously idiotic view on the issue.

 

[BeAChooser]

You call them facts. Reasonable people who get to make TV shows don't call them facts. I'll go with them over your obviously idiotic view on the issue.

I call them facts because one can easily verify them on the internet. You do know how to use your browser, don't you, Joe? For example, if you want proof that a military photographer and a military pathologist voiced concern about the nature of the wound, used the word "bullet", and called for an autopsy, you can find dozens of credible sources include video/audio statements by them stating those concerns. What is "idiotic" is sticking your head in the ground and refusing to do that. But I thank you for demonstrating the problem with sources like NG and DC misrepresenting the facts. It allows folks like you to obstruct the search for truth and yet appear to be reasonable. A dangerous threat to a free society.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It seems to me that an autopsy would settle nothing for a conspiracy buff. After all, according to them, everyone and everything, whether it favours their opinion or contradicts it, is proof of a conspiracy. If a hundred, or a thousand forensic investigators examine the corpse and state that it is not a bullet wound, well, they've been threatened, or bribed. If these people keep the Kennedy myths alive (murders witnessed by hundreds and thousands of people as they happened, with one killer caught in the act), they won't let any of their crackpot notions go.


Conspiracy theorists need better hobbies.

 

[GreNME]

I feel compelled to point out that Mayday is a Discovery Channel Canada production. Though they share the same branding, the Discovery Channel as it exists in Canada is not a direct clone of its American counterpart. While there are plenty of programs which are imported from Discovery Channel in the U.S,, Discovery Channel Canada also has its own original show creations.

The same is true for our version of The History Channel, which is called History Television. Though in this case it has no connection to the American channel and is an entirely separate entity.

Still, this trend in the US programming has been consistent and ongoing for at least the last 5-10 years. Pay stations (cable, satellite, etc.) have managed to garner much higher ratings as a result, I wager. It's all about the lowest common denominator, similar to the internet in general but slightly less frenetic.

 

[slingblade]

I don't how you came to that conclusion.

You've got two issues in your thread: Can you trust the accuracy of information sources, and did two particular sources leave out information from a specific topic--information you feel exists and should have been presented? These can, and probably should, be discreet inquiries. Meaning, they probably shouldn't be conflated, mixed together, taken as one issue.

I came to my conclusion at the moment I saw your reaction to my not being particularly concerned with who or what killed Ron Brown and several other strangers. You were somewhat vehement in response, so I concluded that the Brown issue was at least as important to you as trusting a couple of TV channels.

I then decided the question of trust was merely a frame for discussing Brown, the actual topic. That's how.

Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source?

Not exactly. My claim is that trust may be neither necessary to, or desirable in, the practice of skepticism.

I've heard a lot of things on the news that made me immediately turn on a browser and start looking for verification, and yet I consider my news source to be reasonably reliable. But, not faithfully so. In fact, my chief news source has actually been caught making up "facts" out of whole cloth. I'd be a fool to "trust" them, in that light, now wouldn't I? They're a source for information, but they certainly aren't deserving of blind faith.

Well, well. Look at the words we're suddenly using: trust, faith....rather sounds like the absence of critical thought, somehow.

I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important.

Yes, you did, and that's true. And it's...bad. Trust ought not be important, not in the way I think you mean, but I cover that in more detail a couple of paragraphs down.

You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic.

Actually, I asked if it were desirable to the practice of skepticism. I asked carefully and deliberately. There's no such thing as a True Skeptic. There are only the diverse people who practice skepticism in their own ways.
Yet, consider: if to trust is not to question, then trust seems antithetical to a practice of skepticism, yes?

I pointed out that most people are not skeptics so again whether we can trust a source is important.

No, wait. This really doesn't follow, I'm sorry.

You are absolutely right. Most people aren't skeptics, and some even consider the term "skeptical" to be somehow derisive. Say it with a sneer. Poor, disbelieving bastard. He's got no faith in anything, no trust. What a miserable life. Isn't that right?

So, given that people value trust so highly, what you seem to be saying you'd like to see is certain information sources held to a rigorous standard of presenting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, so help us, Nielson, amen. You want to know that when you turn on the Discovery Channel, the show you are about to see will tell you everything there is to know, so long as it's true. You want to be able to trust them, without having to check for yourself.

You want to be lazy.

You want truth spoon-fed to you, with no effort on your part.

If you prefer to be led, trust is indeed important as you state. I don't prefer to be led, if I can help it.

The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

In the scope of what things? Doesn't your thread title ask: "what can we trust?" My answer is: not much. Did you not want an answer to your own question? Then how is this answer to it "rather immaterial?"

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown.

You most certainly asked me. Shall I refer you?

I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

I'm sorry, do you need others to tell you that a lie by omission is a lie?

The simple answer, topic aside, is no. No, you cannot trust any source that deliberately leaves out vital information when examining any topic. Come on, you never started a thread just to ask this primary-school question, did you? Really?

I think when you declared out of the blue that you didn't care about the Ron Brown or the circumstances of his death, you were just asking to get questioned about that.

It wasn't out of the blue. And, truthfully, I don't really think that way. All I was trying to do was answer your question about trusting sources. The topic isn't important when answering that question, do you see? This one simply doesn't concern me, and I don't see why, apart from my empathy for a horrible tragedy, I should be concerned. Can you enlighten me?

Look, suppose I were to do some research, and came to the conclusion, based on strong evidence, that Ron Brown et al were indeed murdered.

Now what?

And now you object because you got what you apparently wanted?

This just baffles me. What, exactly, am I objecting to again?

 

[BeAChooser]

It seems to me that an autopsy would settle nothing for a conspiracy buff. After all, according to them, everyone and everything, whether it favours their opinion or contradicts it, is proof of a conspiracy.

Nice strawman. It would settle it for me, as I've already stated on numerous occasions. The only requirement I'd have is that the pathologists be selected from people outside the government and that some of the whistleblowers, like Janoski and Cogswell, be in attendance at the autopsy and have access to all data. If Cogswell, etc were satisfied with the result, I'd be satisfied. That's not an unreasonable position.

Conspiracy theorists need better hobbies.

Those defending the Clinton administration need to deal with the actual facts.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a pretty "stupid to the point of ridiculousness" conspiracy you've got there BAC. Deeply, profoundly stupid. You should really consider sitting down and taking stock of your life and mental health. Seriously, I'm not trying to screw with you here(much) because the idea that someone would go through all of this complicated and elaborate nonsense to crash a plane, but also shoot Brown? That's just insane. There's really got to be something wrong with anyone who believes that sort of thing.

It is really easy to kill people and make it look like an accident or a random shooting. No one would concoct a gigantic conspiracy to kill Brown by airplane crash AND bullet. Who would bother? And who would have thought that hatred of Bill Clinton would lead to such deep paranoid delusions?

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back. I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird. I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

I came to my conclusion at the moment I saw your reaction to my not being particularly concerned with who or what killed Ron Brown and several other strangers.

Then I think you just jumped to an unjustified conclusion.

You were somewhat vehement in response, so I concluded that the Brown issue was at least as important to you as trusting a couple of TV channels. I then decided the question of trust was merely a frame for discussing Brown, the actual topic. That's how.

Of course the Brown issue is important to me. But I didn't raise the conspiracy issue in this thread. In fact, I specifically pointed out in the OP that what I was noting about the NG and DC documentaries was independent of any conspiracy theories. I can't help it if those joining the thread instead of focusing on what the OP actually said decided to make the issue the conspiracy theories. They are the ones who framed it that way. And surely you can see that.

Quote:
Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source?

Not exactly. My claim is that trust may be neither necessary to, or desirable in, the practice of skepticism.

You didn't say "may". You said "Is trust a necessary or even desirable trait for a skeptic? I trust not." That's rather definitive.

I've heard a lot of things on the news that made me immediately turn on a browser and start looking for verification

But you are the exception. The average person in the real as opposed to virtual world doesn't look for verification. They just accept what they read as true because they trust the source.

Quote:
I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important.

Yes, you did, and that's true. And it's...bad.

I agree. It is bad but you aren't going to make the average person a skeptic like us. Certainly our education system isn't trying to do that. So like it or not, most people are going to form opinions that affect this country's and the world's future based on whatever they read without verifying the veracity. So again, I conclude that our ability to trust those sources is important. For all our sakes. If the sources can't be trusted, perhaps we should do something about that.

Quote:
You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic.

Actually, I asked if it were desirable to the practice of skepticism

And answered your own question by saying "I trust not."

So, given that people value trust so highly, what you seem to be saying you'd like to see is certain information sources held to a rigorous standard of presenting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, so help us, Nielson, amen.

Yes. Sort of like the Fair Witnesses in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land".

You want to know that when you turn on the Discovery Channel, the show you are about to see will tell you everything there is to know, so long as it's true. You want to be able to trust them, without having to check for yourself. You want to be lazy.

No, I'll always check. Because I'm a skeptic.

I want the source to be trustworthy because public opinion, which affects decisions, comes from mostly non-skeptics, who are too lazy to check. So they need trustworthy sources ... for MY own good. See?

You want truth spoon-fed to you, with no effort on your part.

No, if I felt that way, I'd be of the opinion that Brown died in an accidental plane crash.

I don't prefer to be led, if I can help it.

No, you don't care one way or the other. Remember?

Quote:
The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

In the scope of what things?

Public policy. The sanctity of our election system. The sanctity of our legal system.

Quote:
I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown.

You most certainly asked me. Shall I refer you?

Only after you seemed to make Ron Brown an issue in this thread. Shall I refer you?

Quote:
I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

I'm sorry, do you need others to tell you that a lie by omission is a lie?

Are you trying to be obtuse and miss the point of this thread?

The simple answer, topic aside, is no. No, you cannot trust any source that deliberately leaves out vital information when examining any topic.

Well I'm glad you agree. Now if only the other so-called *skeptics* around here actually felt that way.

The topic isn't important when answering that question, do you see?

I agree. Which makes it curious that so many other so-called *skeptics* around here focused on that topic instead.

This one simply doesn't concern me, and I don't see why, apart from my empathy for a horrible tragedy, I should be concerned. Can you enlighten me?

Well if you can't trust the President, Air Force, Department of Justice, and FBI to properly investigate a potential crime ...

Look, suppose I were to do some research, and came to the conclusion, based on strong evidence, that Ron Brown et al were indeed murdered. Now what?

Motivate public opinion so that the body is exhumed and autopsied.