[onlooker]

I am making this post because I am highly intrigued by the inclinations of our various members here with regard to their sources of information about important subject matters. I think we can all here agree that over time under the strictures of Capitalism wealth has become ever more concentrated. Also, that Corruption is endemic and ubiquitous. So then the connection begs to be made, that the financial hegemonic interests have corrupted and bought off all major institutions and spheres of human concern. Certainly, we can say that Media has and is being bought off at least in the Western world. So my point, is when I see people relying on the mainstream media for information and then some who (rightfully) eschew utilizing it as an important source of information, I realize we have a dichotomy that is intriguing. So where do other members stand on what and whom we can believe in, in these turbulent changing times. Personally, I feel that they're is little that comes from official sources that can be trusted.

[ennui2]

The problem, Onlooker, is just because you can imagine a greed-motive doesn't mean everybody and everything is acting on it.

When you start off a sentence with "Certainly", btw, it's usually a fallacy. It's "certain" to you but not "certain" to those who disagree with your conclusion, witness:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Certainly, we can say that Media has and is being bought off at least in the Western world.

[SeaGypsy]

Of course Ennuiprick is straight in with his weird angle on MSM & a few generalised insults. I'm not sure who else the OP refers to on his side of the fence here, pretty sure it's just him & maybe his buddy Adam.

[ennui2]

Yeah, everyone other than me and AdamB are loyal tinfoilers, right?

[SeaGypsy]

You are just a royal pain in the arse in my opinion, basically vacuous, boring & pretty much full of nothing but yourself & your contempt for just about everyone here. I don't know WTF you do for a living these days, but you sure have a lot of spare time on your hands. Why not use it to do something worthwhile?

[ennui2]

No amount of time I spend here is any more questionable than yours or any other poster. So you're in no position to judge how I spend my time. If what ticks you off the most is the fact I'm not a 911 troother there are plenty of other sites dedicated to the topic. As far as I'm concerned the tinfoil is just noise and totally OT.

BTW, if you teeter too much into namecalling I'm gonna start flagging your ass. Try to keep it about the issues.

[SeaGypsy]

Flag me then, big deal, truth is adequate defense.

[Newfie]

FWIW,
I think MSM is pretty empty of truth and/or reality. I get some news here, an odd bit elsewhere, but mostly feel left in an information vacuum.

Frankly I think that most business is built on some kind of lie, our product is better, our method is better, our returns are better. It is also part of our legal system, opposing lawyers, each making the best case possible, stretching the truth. Politicians are mostly lawyers, trained advocates, focused on winning vs truth.

So, yes, I agree Onlooker. We see a similar situation.

[Ibon]

Yes MSM is devoid of truth and reality and is corrupted by the interests of corporations. This can lead one to erroneously conclude that dismantling this corruption or speaking truth can lead us out of our collective quagmire.

Blaming MSM, BAU, elites, corporations or capitalism keeps the focus of systemic problems within the confines of human endeavors and institutions.

Imagine a moment that the MSM would remove the shackles of parasitic corporations and start out the newsday speaking truth and reality.

What real impact would this have on our ecological dilemma?

[Newfie]

I think MSM is part of the capitalist corporate structure, they are shackled by their own internal structure.

But to answer your question I do think telling the truth would have effects, but it would take quite a while. The immediate effect would be a howl of complaint. After a while it would settle down and some civil discourse would evolve. Propaganda/advertising does work after all, fundamentally it's not a lot different from telling the truth.

[onlooker]

If we go by the reasonable premise that all people act on their self interest, I do believe things could have been different. If our entire societies could have functioned with relative transparency and honesty with a minimum of corruption, we could have collectively understood the grave ramifications to everyone of continuing this type of Industrial Civilization and its most pernicious aspects. Then it follows we also may have collectively chosen different paths. I know many ifs and mays. As it is all this line of inquiry is futile as we are set now on an irreversible course to encounter severe overshoot consequences.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')Imagine a moment that the MSM would remove the shackles of parasitic corporations and start out the newsday speaking truth and reality.

[Newfie]

It should be pretty easy to come up with a top 5 issues

Over population
Financial complexity
Water
Resource depletion
Etc

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')t should be pretty easy to come up with a top 5 issues

Over population
Financial complexity
Water
Resource depletion
Etc

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'T')hat's why a lot of this sentiment is simply the fantasy we have of using the MSM as our own personal ideological mouthpiece (ala Network).

[Ibon]

Inertia means we bumble into the future blindly until catalysts jolt us into consensus. Consensus and will and unity comes from external human agency, not from within the dysfunction itself.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yellowcanoe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')t should be pretty easy to come up with a top 5 issues

Over population
Financial complexity
Water
Resource depletion
Etc

[ennui2]

"you all know where I am eventually heading. "

Overshoot predator.

[AgentR11]

The MSM exists simply to sell soap; truth, partial truth, or complete lack thereof has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is that the story is cheap to produce, has a catch for "outrage of the day", and doesn't overly interfere with the purpose of the media.

You can however, use an intersect principle; if you take, say, the NYT, FT, Taas, and Xinhua; those facts that they agree on, are likely to actually be true. And surprisingly enough, there's quite a few facts that they do agree. Problem is, none of those facts generally produce the required "outrage of the day". No good guys, no bad guys, just national and personal interests seeking their logical conclusion.

Once you can accept that, you can build your own narrative independent of government press secretaries, and with it, parse information to reveal something close to ground truth.