So tell us how you personally figure out when the mainstream media is telling the truth and when it's spewing propaganda. If it's not that complicated to understand, it shouldn't be very hard for you to explain.
I've never seen a formula for the deciphering of the trove of information all around us, but I know certain things, like what has once been thought impossible has been proven otherwise, which is a core concept of the field of history itself -- it isn't always made of concrete, it often enough is quite malleable as new information/evidence is discovered. Another thing of note is that there is a relationship between the government and the media just like the government has relationships with other industries. While I don't subscribe to the notion that the press is controlled in a totalitarian manner (absolutely controlled), there are many examples throughout the years that have showed a relationship much closer than comfort allows. I understand the complicated nature of things, though, that the media has the power to stir up emotions or cause legitimate harm to national security. I grew up believing and being taught that the U.S. was the freest country ever and that the freedom naturally extended into our press, the freest press on the planet. Well, that's not true. We're not even in the top ten or twenty anymore. I wish that we were. But the situation is too complicated and delicate for that trend to reverse.
But deciphering what's said between what's legitimately real and believable to not legitimate and not believable, I suppose, would vary from one person to another, given the fact of different levels of attained knowledge or logical thought process. Take vampires for instance, you know, Dracula? Has the U.S. Congress ever investigated vampires? No. No they have not. But they have investigated UFOs. And more than once. To me, that lends more credence to the notion of UFOs and no credence to the notion of vampires. The moon landing hoax is another one. There were no investigations by the U.S. Congress to determine the legitimacy of NASA putting man on the moon. No blue-ribbon panel either. There haven't been legitimate calls in the press, by the press or any one with a shred of credibility, to open up a debate about the moon landing. But that phenomena exists in the JFK assassination. We know that the government isn't withholding evidence about the faked moon landing because we know NASA put men on the moon and did so more than once. But we know the government is withholding information about the JFK assassination and there wasn't a uniform consensus among government officials, even as high ranking as POTUS, to doubt the explanation offered by the Warren Commission. It also exists in 9/11.
Without being read into the system myself, I'll openly admit that I cannot give you an equation to how to know whether they are right or wrong. I am not arrogant enough to suggest otherwise. Having read as many articles as I have, there are traits and characteristics of the media like any person can notice in other industries, like professional sports. Fans know about their favorite team. Watching a player from their debut to their retirement, as so many fans have done, has given them an insight to that player's actions visibly demonstrated for potentially thousands of games. The player's mannerisms will be known, like a boxing fan can tell when the fighters are pissed off or when they're hurt, acting or exhausted. With enough exposure, a person can get that kind of familiarity with the media/journalists. They have told us often that they've withheld information at the request of the government or some other concerned party, but they've also told us that they've gone against the government's wishes (or some other concerned party) and published the information anyway, sometimes even taking the matter to court, which happened with the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. We've seen the media side with the government about wars and we've seen some resistance too. We've seen the media ask tough questions and demonstrate an urge to dig deeper and we've seen the media quote an official and not ask any follow up questions.
In theory, when the media is going to the mat against the government is when I suspect that more truthful information comes out. Essentially, it is a battle for information. It is a segment of the relationship between the two -- access to information. There are many recorded instances, even current ones with the Obama administration, where the White House has denied access to a media company because they were/are unhappy with what they have reported or continue to report. Basically, politics and normal human emotional responses -- "They said mean things about me!" Another aspect I look for is saturation reporting. The media saturates on certain topics most of the time -- sex scandals, race issues, school shootings, weather -- but they don't harbor spotlights too often on matters relevant to national security. Typically when they do however, there is a there there. Something of real substance to the story. When they provide documentation, be it still classified or declassified, it solidifies the case more than just quips from anonymous officials not able to speak publicly about X, Y or Z. Other times though, one or maybe two media companies will drop a bombshell story that isn't widely covered or given prime time attention on the morning or evening news. Gone just as quickly as it showed up.
) would be an example of that.
