patrick.net

mostly reader says

Get off RT nuts. You don't box them, you hug them.

Faux News and Newsmax ain't much better.

Came out they got paid by HHS to push COVID vaccines, and of course both were crap on 1/6 and Election Fraud.

AmericanKulak says

mostly reader says

Get off RT nuts. You don't box them, you hug them.

Faux News and Newsmax ain't much better.

Came out they got paid by HHS to push COVID vaccines, and of course both were crap on 1/6 and Election Fraud.

Sure. Which is why I rarely refer to either. When I do, it's typically because their story has been cross-referenced.

Fox specifically looks suspicious because they didn't call out multiple fake news on Trump until after the damage was done.

stereotomy says

Go get'em @richwicks and @nuttboxer! Expose trolls and propagandists for what they are.

I'm not positive they are either, but I do have my suspicions. Propagandists mimic people, it's not trivial to distinguish them online. People who are tricked by propagandists spread the ideas of them without realizing it. Everybody is a victim of this to some extent and I know I'm not immune.

Propagandists are, however, easy to identify in video. On television, they all are. You know you've been fooled when you cannot explain why you believe what you've been programmed to believe. Many people get angry when they are confronted with this realization, for me, it's a revelation - at least now. 30 years ago, I was enraged, because "it's obvious! How can you be this stupid????".

It's interesting to be old and to be able to review past experiences.

mostly reader says

Sure. Which is why I rarely refer to either. When I do, it's typically because their story has been cross-referenced.

Fox specifically looks suspicious because they didn't call out multiple fake news on Trump until after the damage was done.

Okay, MSNBC and CNN did the same, and are proven liars over and over again, from putting Avenatti (remember him? they touted him as a 2020 Candidate) up twice a day, to Masks Working, to CRT just being for law students (until it was not being taught at all, or alternatively only in college, and when that failed, lying that it was simply Civil Rights history like Rosa Parks and vital for America), etc. Trump would go after da Gays, Peeing on Hotel Beds, Perfect Phone Call, etc. etc.

Which News Sources DO you trust?

AmericanKulak says

After 2014, the new government

Which is a CIA/Ukrainian Oligarch joint venture.
!!FREEDOM!! and !!DEMOCRACY!!

AmericanKulak says

Which News Sources DO you trust?

None of them, individually.

There's difference though. Fox and CNN work for clicks first and foremost, and only then they are propaganda outlets. Fox is better because they clearly separate facts from opinions. MSNBC are just insane. It seems that they believe their own BS.

The likes of RT operate on a different (much cruder) level. They are propaganda outlets first and foremost, all else is secondary.

NuttBoxer says

Israeli and Palestinian DNA are too similar

"It's like yams hating sweet potatoes"
Sarah Silverman

NuttBoxer says

Labs, plural. They were not coincidentally the early targets of Russian missile strikes. Also, there are articles about Russia complaining of the labs well before now. Speculation is they were working on genetic specific diseases, specific to the region of the lab

Dr Robert Malone, who spent his career 'deeply involved in the US Biodefense enterprise', says basically they are ALL biological weapon labs.
".....over many decades, the total expenditures of the US Government in developing biowarfare agents exceeded the money spent on thermonuclear weapons. A case can be made that modern understanding and technology relating molecular biology, microbiology, and virology is fundamentally a “civilian” byproduct of a massive investment in biowarfare tech by US, USSR, and other governments. "

mostly reader says

There's difference though. Fox and CNN work for clicks first and foremost, and only then they are propaganda outlets. Fox is better because they clearly separate facts from opinions. MSNBC are just insane. It seems that they believe their own BS.

Only then? Do you think Fox taking HHS money to push the Vax may have colored their coverage?

Was there a US intervention in the past 20 years Fox was against?

None of them. NONE OF THEM. Hold the candle to the military grade propaganda that RT and such has to offer. They are amateurs, in comparison.

AmericanKulak says

mostly reader says

There's difference though. Fox and CNN work for clicks first and foremost, and only then they are propaganda outlets. Fox is better because they clearly separate facts from opinions. MSNBC are just insane. It seems that they believe their own BS.

Only then? Do you think Fox taking HHS money to push the Vax may have colored their coverage?

Was there a US intervention in the past 20 years Fox was against?

Agreed, also hannity is and has always been a major warmonger, and as a propagandist not different from RT, lapping up every hoax as long as it's putin baaad.. 80% on there is also warmongering at this point. The truth is that there is very little difference between Russian, Chinese, Canadian, Western European or American media these days.

mostly reader says

None of them. NONE OF THEM. Hold the candle to the military grade propaganda that RT and such has to offer. They are amateurs, in comparison.

So RT is propaganda (agreed), Fox and CNN are the other side of propaganda, as has been amply demonstrated behind a shadow of a doubt, beyond reasonable objections, to a degree of certainty, especially in the past few years.

I stopped watching Fox the day after the Election when they were pushing the "Wait and See" BS. It was wait and see until Dems got outside the mandatory recount margins of the various states, then wait and see became "That's it, it's over, no questions, no waiting, no seeing" Friday Morning.

So, to go back to the question, which news sources do you rely upon?

AmericanKulak says

So RT is propaganda (agreed), Fox and CNN are the other side of propaganda, as has been amply demonstrated behind a shadow of a doubt, beyond reasonable objections, to a degree of certainty, especially in the past few years.

You missed my first point. Calling Fox and CNN "the other side of propaganda" when you compare them to the likes of RT/RIA is like comparing stuffy nose to cancer. Or playground misunderstanding to UFC heavyweight title fight. Pick your preferred analogy. Our media couldn't hold candle to the hammer-like brainwashing of the other side. Same goes for our government: they are so useless, they look like they are lying even when they combat Russian disinformation. Here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/10/us-denies-russian-claims-of-biowarfare-labs-in-ukraine?source=patrick.net They couldn't even explain why this is disinformation.

AmericanKulak says

So, to go back to the question, which news sources do you rely upon?

You also missed my second point. I already answered that: "None of them, individually."

I do have a process. Which allows me to label something "true" or "false" with reasonable accuracy.

Let's talk a bit more about that. We all have our processes (for some, a "process" is just watching CNN). How would you know that your process is good? Because you detected propaganda and stopped following a source? Nah, that's not good enough. You may have switched to something that's even worse because it doesn't trigger your BS detector due to a different delivery style. Because it builds somewhat of a consistent picture? Nah, that's not good enough either. Because you may be missing things that make it inconsistent, or because there may be other consistent pictures.

There's only one answer: you use your process to predict future and see how well that goes, and if it doesn't then you make adjustments. We have a wonderful setup here: a thread kindly presented by @Bd6r https://patrick.net/post/1343705/2022-02-18-will-russia-invade-ukraine in which he asked to do exactly that, to make a prediction.

Now, go through that thread. Note all the people who said "No". And understand: the higher the enthusiasm with which a person said "no", the more clueless they are about what's going on in real life. Pay special attention to those who said "No" along with some cute remark pointing elsewhere.

That would be a start to understanding processes and to classifying people based on their understanding of reality.

Patrick says

Our media couldn't hold candle to the hammer-like brainwashing of the other side.

I disagree. The US corporate media is the hammer-like brainwashing. It is pervasive and uniform in its support for the whims of GloboCap.

I don't know much about the Russian media but what I can see from here, but it's hardly conceivable that it could be more manipulative or dishonest than, say, CNN.

Patrick says

I disagree...

You are not seeing the other half of the comparison that I'm making. Yet you have an opinion. I see.

mostly reader says

You missed my first point. Calling Fox and CNN "the other side of propaganda" when you compare them to the likes of RT/RIA is like comparing stuffy nose to cancer. Or playground misunderstanding to UFC heavyweight title fight. Pick your preferred analogy. Our media couldn't hold candle to the hammer-like brainwashing of the other side. Same goes for our government: they are so useless, they look like they are lying even when they combat Russian disinformation. Here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/10/us-denies-russian-claims-of-biowarfare-labs-in-ukraine?source=patrick.net They couldn't even explain why this is disinformation.

How do YOU know what is propaganda and what isn't?

So how do YOU know the Biolabs are propaganda?

mostly reader says

There's only one answer: you use your process to predict future and see how well that goes, and if it doesn't then you make adjustments. We have a wonderful setup here: a thread kindly presented by @Bd6r https://patrick.net/post/1343705/2022-02-18-will-russia-invade-ukraine in which he asked to do exactly that, to make a prediction.

Now, go through that thread. Note all the people who said "No". And understand: the higher the enthusiasm with which a person said "no", the more clueless they are about what's going on in real life. Pay special attention to those who said "No" along with some cute remark pointing elsewhere.

Yes, the past prediction metric.

However, I'll the "falsus en unum" isn't always a perfect metric. We've been told Russia was building up forces to invade Ukraine many times before, just like we've been told Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons (not that that isn't an end goal, but we've heard that for 20 years). We've also been told that COVID mandate lifting were going to create mass death waves not mere months ago, now even NYC is lifting it's restrictions. Same about refusal to get vaccinated, that the vaccine protected people from death with immunity, but simultaneously somehow the unvaccinated were endangering the vaccinated who had immunity. That the vaccine worked well on variants (Fauci, 2021 also Biden and CDC Director W????stein/berg) turned out to have little impact vs. Omnicron.

Does that make the US/Various State Governments unreliable on other issues? They were "Falsus en unum" so why not in "Omnibus"? In fact in many "unums", ha.

So based on past performance, it was actually reasonable to expect Russia not to Invade, esp. given the Admin's need to pivot from loser COVID and the shit Economy.

For example:
Or, the poorest country in the area that has previously downed Civilian Aircraft by mistake in the past, couldn't possibly have downed another one (MH17).

There's a term I made called "Faux Skeptic", it's about people who apply skepticism to counter-status quo narratives, but give the Establishment/Status Quo Narratives every consideration with lack of said skepticism. Like Factcheckers do.

I would like to know how you "know" the biolabs are propaganda, however.

Where it is going - a failed state with white Christian Slavic Isis-like resistors. Russia isolated from the EU. The Belt and road stalled in this region. Russian energy possibly verbotten very long-term. NATO reinvigorated. Germany gets the war buzz going. (See The Ramones for musical accompaniment.)

The usual helter-skelter CIA disruption/destruction. But the USA are the good guyz, you see.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

The usual helter-skelter CIA disruption/destruction.

Which leads to Klaus Schwab rubbing his hands together like the demented Pelosi doing her Human Fly impression when she contemplates G.I.'s breathing toxic smoke.

> AmericanKulak

You are confusing data with narrative with prediction.

"Russia is amassing it's forces at the boarder" - that's an example of data (right or wrong).
"This doesn't look good" - that's an example of narrative (right or wrong).
"Russia will invade Ukraine" - that's prediction.

Process picks your sources for data and narrative. Those sources may be conflicting. Process further takes them to prediction. Of the 3, prediction is the one that may be verified. If your predictions are wrong, it's time to change the process.

That's what a data-oriented person would do. But note how folks who were verifiably wrong didn't reconsider their process. I'd say that the opposite happened: cognitive dissonance ensued and most of them doubled down.

AmericanKulak says

I would like to know how you "know" the biolabs are propaganda, however.

Because at this point Russia has no way of knowing if it's a genuine research lab or bio-warfare lab.

Furthermore, I went on record saying that these labs will not affect diplomatic relationships between US and Russia. I don't see anyone go on record and say otherwise.