Mainstream vs. Alternative

[Gracy]

I've been observing the push/pull between mainstream media, and alternative media, for some time now. Namely, the degree of faith that people in general hold for either or, and if possible, why.

The why part is the tricky one, even if keeping with just say, the mainstream side of the equation. For instance I'm very close to people who swear by MSNBC as the sole source of good information and reporting.

I'm also very close to people who swear by FOX NEWS as the sole source of good information and reporting.

Of course there are others too, and they all cater to their varying demographics to varying degrees, but in the end they're all still corporate mainstream media, I just chose FOX and MSNBC to demonstrate the vast differences even within corporate media. It's obviously not just one big all encompassing microphone.

Neither the two will ever mix, at all, and that's understandable these days, but both camps have one thing in common: They will both dip their toes into the world of conspiracy, but they will always be at polar opposites as to which ones they may or may not adhere to.

Which brings us to alternative media. Now I, personally, don't see alt media as speaking with one huge united megaphone either, any more than mainstream media. There are certain factions here as well, demographics if you will, and people tend to settle into the ones that suit them best, same as in msm.

So to get around to my question. Is msm always 100% inaccurate? Is any given major newspaper spewing pure propaganda 100% of the time? Do they lie most of the time, but sometimes they're accurate to varying degrees? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

Same with alt media. Is alt media across the board reporting with 100% accuracy? Is any given outlet usually right, but sometimes gets it wrong? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

I reckon we could also make it more nuanced, leaving accuracy out: Could it be said that msm almost always has a negative agenda behind they're reporting, while alt media at least almost always has the purest of intentions behind they're reporting?

Might there be varying degrees of either? And might that yet again be dependent on factions?

So I hope this doesn't come across as divisive, that is most assuredly not the intent. I'm truly curious of people's opinions on this subject. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to dive into these waters with my msm watching friends and family. Whatever source they trust, that's the truest news source to be found and it's not to be questioned.

But Avalon is different, it's a discussion board aimed at burrowing down into all kinds of subjects, from the benign to the controversial. I hope that explains my intentions.

Perhaps my overall question isn't even entirely clear, that's possible as this can be quite the tangled web of a complicated, very nuanced issue. If so, let me know and I'll attempt to clarify as needed.

[ExomatrixTV]

• This chart is obvious subjective, but it may help a bit to see how they see themselves with help from their own confirmation bias voters!

• source

🇳🇱 Top 300 Dutch Real Alternative Media Rankings: tinyurl.com/Alternatieve-Media-NL-2021 🦜🦋🌳 << working very hard to update it on a daily bases and add more extras every day!

When using PC not smart(death)phones click on me to translate most Dutch Alternative Media sources in to: English or German or French or Spanish or Chinese etc. etc.

[Open Minded Dude]

This is a very US American situation. In many European countries of the Western world we only have one rather leftist MSM and no right-wing counterpart. The Alternative Media are just the internet only, no TV. Of course they used to be on YT but as we all know they have been purged largely from there but you can find some gems still existing who might get some videos removed but keep staying there.

So again. You Fox vs. CNN situation is very US-centric to me. Maybe you are even lucky with this as at least you have still somewhat two sides on the outside, while in reality they are just two sides of the same foul coin.

[Dennis Leahy]

I have to laugh at the chart indicating that there are any of those entities (corporations?) listed as "Center", like the Wall Street Journal and NPR. It also promotes the new definition for the "left", as I see no corporations listed as "left" or "left-leaning" that are actually anti-war, anti-corporatist, and pro-ecology, which is what "LEFT" and "LEFT-leaning" used to represent. The corporations being listed on the left side of the chart is as close as any of them get to actually being the "Left."

A much better way to label the chart headings would be "Democrat-leaning, pro-corporatist, militarist, imperialist, ecocidal, propaganda outlets", and "Republican-leaning, pro-corporatist, militarist, imperialist, ecocidal, propaganda outlets."

Gracy, someone compiled a statistic a few years ago, which showed that fully 80% of what the people who read/watch the news hear is actually read directly from corporate press releases and State Department/US gov offices. Directly read off the paper/teleprompter. I'd guess that about 99% of it is lies, "sins of omission" (that which is never covered), and social-engineering propaganda. And the other 20%, well, that's the "cat in a tree rescue" and high school football scores, which are actual, real, true stories/news.

I wouldn't say that mainscream media never hits a single point of truth, but even then, it is wrapped in an agenda and used (twisted, spun, massaged) to confuse, to propagandize, not inform. Alt media is a great place to find out the true data, the true data points, and then to cogitate your own analysis. Probably the biggest problem with the alt sites is that the commentators often present the data wrapped in their own analysis of the data, and spend time trying to convince others that their analysis is correct. There's no question that mainscream media is basically nefarious pro-corporate propaganda, but that doesn't automatically make the "alt news" websites the final say in the analysis of data that they dare to present - but they are the only places to find the real data to start ones own analysis.

[TomKat]

Posted by Gracy (here)
I've been observing the push/pull between mainstream media, and alternative media, for some time now. Namely, the degree of faith that people in general hold for either or, and if possible, why.

The why part is the tricky one, even if keeping with just say, the mainstream side of the equation. For instance I'm very close to people who swear by MSNBC as the sole source of good information and reporting.

I'm also very close to people who swear by FOX NEWS as the sole source of good information and reporting.

Of course there are others too, and they all cater to their varying demographics to varying degrees, but in the end they're all still corporate mainstream media, I just chose FOX and MSNBC to demonstrate the vast differences even within corporate media. It's obviously not just one big all encompassing microphone.

Neither the two will ever mix, at all, and that's understandable these days, but both camps have one thing in common: They will both dip their toes into the world of conspiracy, but they will always be at polar opposites as to which ones they may or may not adhere to.

Which brings us to alternative media. Now I, personally, don't see alt media as speaking with one huge united megaphone either, any more than mainstream media. There are certain factions here as well, demographics if you will, and people tend to settle into the ones that suit them best, same as in msm.

So to get around to my question. Is msm always 100% inaccurate? Is any given major newspaper spewing pure propaganda 100% of the time? Do they lie most of the time, but sometimes they're accurate to varying degrees? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

Same with alt media. Is alt media across the board reporting with 100% accuracy? Is any given outlet usually right, but sometimes gets it wrong? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

I reckon we could also make it more nuanced, leaving accuracy out: Could it be said that msm almost always has a negative agenda behind they're reporting, while alt media at least almost always has the purest of intentions behind they're reporting?

Might there be varying degrees of either? And might that yet again be dependent on factions?

So I hope this doesn't come across as divisive, that is most assuredly not the intent. I'm truly curious of people's opinions on this subject. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to dive into these waters with my msm watching friends and family. Whatever source they trust, that's the truest news source to be found and it's not to be questioned.

But Avalon is different, it's a discussion board aimed at burrowing down into all kinds of subjects, from the benign to the controversial. I hope that explains my intentions.

Perhaps my overall question isn't even entirely clear, that's possible as this can be quite the tangled web of a complicated, very nuanced issue. If so, let me know and I'll attempt to clarify as needed.

A main difference between the two is that the mainstream media coordinates their lies, whereas the alternative side comes up with multiple stories (tall tales). A lot of people my age put credence in the mainstream media, even after they spent 2016 to 2020 proving beyond a shadow of doubt that they are mostly fake and the united voice of the state. I now refer to it as the "OSwald Killed Kennedy media," to remind people they've been fake from the get-go.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Couldn't have said it any better, Dennis.

The MSM has an agenda that has nothing to do with unadulterated data and facts. There is always an official spin that obscures the pertinent information behind half truths and excuses.

The alternative news sites at least let us see the hidden side of the news stories, often correcting the MSM narrative. The problem is that the alternatives are fighting an uphill battle against the vast majority who get their news each night from the TV. So there is an unquestionable bias that has to be weeded through.

Sites that go into crazy conspiracies and narrate all day about their pet disaster scenario and latest woo insight are just as guilty of spreading misinformation as the MSM. Channels and the masters of woo are not helping except perhaps as unsubstantiated sources of hope, but often marred by an under-current of fear and apocalyptic prophecy.

In the end, no source can be trusted. And no source can be taken at their word. It must be checked and verified by the individual. Even so in most cases it will be merely a best guess situation, with no certainty possible.
Like my dad loves to tell me, 'People like me and you can never know the truth.'

[Gracy]

Here's another wrinkle to add to this: I'm sure we're all aware of "Operation Mockingbird", the intent being to basically infiltrate all U.S. media, and have them corral the populace into harboring ideas and opinions that would be advantageous to what we now call Deep State. Once aware of this, it's quite easy to see its continued effectiveness to this day on mainstream media outlets.

But does it make sense that the relatively small percentage of breakaways, would be safe from such influence by merely crossing the border into the alternative information universe, same as a fugitive used to be free of pursuit once they crossed the border from the U.S. into Mexico?

Not likely, which means the hard earned discernment filters still need to be kept on alert, once crossing over this imaginary border into the promised land.

[TomKat]

Posted by TomKat (here)

Posted by Gracy (here)
I've been observing the push/pull between mainstream media, and alternative media, for some time now. Namely, the degree of faith that people in general hold for either or, and if possible, why.

The why part is the tricky one, even if keeping with just say, the mainstream side of the equation. For instance I'm very close to people who swear by MSNBC as the sole source of good information and reporting.

I'm also very close to people who swear by FOX NEWS as the sole source of good information and reporting.

Of course there are others too, and they all cater to their varying demographics to varying degrees, but in the end they're all still corporate mainstream media, I just chose FOX and MSNBC to demonstrate the vast differences even within corporate media. It's obviously not just one big all encompassing microphone.

Neither the two will ever mix, at all, and that's understandable these days, but both camps have one thing in common: They will both dip their toes into the world of conspiracy, but they will always be at polar opposites as to which ones they may or may not adhere to.

Which brings us to alternative media. Now I, personally, don't see alt media as speaking with one huge united megaphone either, any more than mainstream media. There are certain factions here as well, demographics if you will, and people tend to settle into the ones that suit them best, same as in msm.

So to get around to my question. Is msm always 100% inaccurate? Is any given major newspaper spewing pure propaganda 100% of the time? Do they lie most of the time, but sometimes they're accurate to varying degrees? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

Same with alt media. Is alt media across the board reporting with 100% accuracy? Is any given outlet usually right, but sometimes gets it wrong? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

I reckon we could also make it more nuanced, leaving accuracy out: Could it be said that msm almost always has a negative agenda behind they're reporting, while alt media at least almost always has the purest of intentions behind they're reporting?

Might there be varying degrees of either? And might that yet again be dependent on factions?

So I hope this doesn't come across as divisive, that is most assuredly not the intent. I'm truly curious of people's opinions on this subject. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to dive into these waters with my msm watching friends and family. Whatever source they trust, that's the truest news source to be found and it's not to be questioned.

But Avalon is different, it's a discussion board aimed at burrowing down into all kinds of subjects, from the benign to the controversial. I hope that explains my intentions.

Perhaps my overall question isn't even entirely clear, that's possible as this can be quite the tangled web of a complicated, very nuanced issue. If so, let me know and I'll attempt to clarify as needed.

A main difference between the two is that the mainstream media coordinates their lies, whereas the alternative side comes up with multiple stories (tall tales). A lot of people my age put credence in the mainstream media, even after they spent 2016 to 2020 proving beyond a shadow of doubt that they are mostly fake and the united voice of the state. I now refer to it as the "OSwald Killed Kennedy media," to remind people they've been fake from the get-go.

The various fake coverage over the decades has created an opportunity for public figures to covertly announce their membership in the deep state. Any time they support the official (ridiculous) story or belittle criticism of it, it signals they are privvy to the cover-up. For instance, Obama said that anyone who questioned the Great Boxcutter Theory (my words) was tantamount to a Holocaust denier. Peter Jennings, before he died (perhaps to secure his place in hell) did an elaborate show "proving" (poorly) the Oswald theory. I remember G Gordon Liddy (suspected of shooting Officer Tibbs) on a few occasions telling his audiece he believed the official story, when his guest speculated that LBJ hitman Wallace was responsible. Anyway, if any public figure belittles the "conspiracy theories" of any of these events, it's a good clue they were privvy to the cover-up, or want to have been.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Gracy, from my perspective at least, it is not the truth that is important - because the truth is mired in so many biases and prejudices and pet beliefs and just plain old nasty ignorance. It even could be argued that there is no actual objective truth at all. Since we come here not knowing our own true selves how can we know truth in any objective sense?

I find the truth is not as important as an alternative viewpoint. I think it is necessary to be exposed to as many sides of an issue as possible, so that all the facts are presented and are on the table. In this world so many viewpoints are not allowed public exposure because they are dangerous to the powers that be. Unadulterated truth is dangerous to all forms of power structures because it includes the idea that perhaps the PTB are not correct or are taking an unfavourable position. Truth holds the potential for opposition and the loss of the reigns of power.

Truth is only conducive to one form of governance: Democracy, or government by the people. That is, it is not the current crop of politicians that is important but that the dialog remain open and the truth remain transparent so that good decisions can be made by the people on who to elect and who to remove from power.

That is why truth has always been a threat to those in power. It is also why the truth is so vital and a free press so absolutely essential to a democracy run by the people and for the people.

Without truth there is only tyranny.

[Gracy]

Not sure I'm following along here Ernie.

You started out with this:

Gracy, from my perspective at least, it is not the truth that is important - because the truth is mired in so many biases and prejudices and pet beliefs and just plain old nasty ignorance. It even could be argued that there is no actual objective truth at all. Since we come here not knowing our own true selves how can we know truth in any objective sense?

And ended with this:

That is why truth has always been a threat to those in power. It is also why the truth is so vital and a free press so absolutely essential to a democracy run by the people and for the people.

Without truth there is only tyranny.

I do wholeheartedly agree that it's "necessary to be exposed to as many sides of an issue as possible", that goes straight to the heart of America's 1ST Amendment.

I also agree that truth can be in the eye of the beholder, just like the old saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Tricky business for sure, under the best of circumstances, then start sprinkling in purposeful dis and mis information, it just makes it that much trickier.

I do believe there are objective truths out there, for sure, no different than it's an objective truth to look outside to see if it's raining or sunshine. I reckon the problems arise in what obstacles are in place to deter or hamper that clean, unobstructed observation.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I see I use the word truth with a cavalier attitude, my mistake. There is no truth as such, only information.

When you looked outside and saw a sunny sky, I looked out and it was raining. The truth wasn't the state of affairs in my neighbourhood, that is just information. The truth is there is a thing called weather. And weather is a consequence of many other 'truths' not all related specifically to weather. Truth is absolute and comprehensive. Information is contingent.

To me the truth is the access to the information on hand. Not quite truth but a place where truth might just be lurking, and I might find it if I am discerning enough to uncover it. Or better yet, if I listen hard enough, perhaps another will find it and share it with those with ears to hear. I hope I am cultivating a receptive attitude toward that end.

But that 'receptive attitude' comes with a caveat. I must also actively shun what I deem to be unproductive lines of inquiry or manipulated data sets or misleading arguments based on unverified or false data. Of course that means I must have a bias both for defence of what I think I know and for furthering my search.

It is a bitch to tear down a whole edifice of 'truths' that at one time served as belief in my ability to understand reality, only to find it lead nowhere in the end. That takes dedication and humility and the ability to pick up the pieces and move on from there still heeding the call, yearning for clarity and a truth that can encompass and make sense of all the diverging threads of available information.

[Mypos]

Posted by Gracy (here)




So to get around to my question. Is msm always 100% inaccurate? Is any given major newspaper spewing pure propaganda 100% of the time? Do they lie most of the time, but sometimes they're accurate to varying degrees? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

Same with alt media. Is alt media across the board reporting with 100% accuracy? Is any given outlet usually right, but sometimes gets it wrong? Or does it depend on what faction we're talking about?

Hi Gracy. To answer your question how i see it is this. MSM is mainly half truths mixed with lies. I think there has to be enough truth in it because on some energy level people feel when something is just blatant lies.

Alternative media is alot of truth but also alot of disinfo because tptb try to sabotage these news outlets as much as possible.

So in the end for me it comes down to "feeling" what resonates with you mixed with logical thinking. Thats how i try to weed my way trough this info and disinfo war.

[Vangelo]

When I was 17 I was a bystander to an event that became a riot. Unfortunately, I was in the center of the event and almost got killed. I saw what lead up to the riot and how it ended. It was during the Boston Public School busing fiasco. I remember watching the local nightly news on TV and was confused because the local news got the story wrong. The national news also covered it and got it wrong, but they were consistent with the local news even though it was a different TV network. The Boston Globe (the largest newspaper in the area) the next morning published an article that was complete fiction but supported the themes of the TV news. The only paper that got it correct was the Boston Herald American (I think that was its name at the time). I even went to Harvard Square and purchased the New York Times to see if they published an article and it was a variant of the lie. For years I wondered how they all could have gotten it so wrong. Today, I ingest many different news sources and draw my own conclusions. My bias is to believe an independent news source much more so than the MSM.

[iota]

one of the primary components that is definitive, NOT a "nuance" of the MSM is that:

they are PAID to lie to us, to divide us, to undermine us any and every way they can

they are our enemy by their own declaration, and they make sure that message is CLEAR and not a nuance

when someone has an agenda? Truth automatically gets distorted, muddied, introduces confusion, division

this is to obfuscate facts, the primary fact being > their INTENTION to deceive us to divide us

here is a fact > without DECEPTION? they can NEVER "win"

they are actually cowards who HAVE to lie, cheat, steal in order to TRY to "win" a game that wouldn't stand a chance of victory, if played in straightforward TRUTH and CLARITY

for example, if they came and said "we are here to enslave you" the answer would be "like heck you are!"

their ONLY chance of winning? is by CHEATING ...

those who are committed to TRUTH speak with CLARITY have NO need to hide, or pretend or use subtleties or nuances ~ ~~ therefore, camouflage , obfuscation, deception are easily detected and are detested

YET despite ALL the efforts to lie, to hide, to prevent discovery lest they would be "chased down and lynched" as Bush Sr said

"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us."

-- George H.W. Bush

to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, in response to the question, What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?

one reference here

btw? Bush's statement? ~ completely validates my points!

at THAT time? all their cowardly scurrying? was STILL cloaked under an "appearance of propriety"

there were laws in place that prohibited the use of propaganda on American citizens. specifically, The Smith-Mundt Act.

unfortunately that changed in 2013 when Obama removed that prohibition through an insertion in the NDAA of 2013
(the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013)

you can read about it here and here

Attachment 45653

THAT move? to permit LIES through the Media?

IS what brought me into this world of politics. THAT specific act.

to catapult me into action? due to immediate threat? is something i don't undertake lightly

i HATE lies and those who promote them or excuse them

i'm trying to help people > they're intent on destroying them

i'm trying to empower people > they're intent on demeaning and undermining them

i'm trying to make the world a better place > they are engaging in an organized and systematic destruction of our planet

I’m trying to bring CLARITY and operate in TRUTH > they continuously introduce confusion, redirect focus AWAY from TRUTH

and their standard mode of operation?

IS DECEPTION


we ARE opposite ... both in agenda and objectives

and to the degree of commitment to TRUTH and CLARITY that exists?

the easier it becomes to immediately spot what is NOT TRUTH or CLARITY. mine? is a LIFELONG commitment

so, AS Tomkat aptly pointed out, the lies DID exist! they were just illegal. Obama made deception in the media LEGAL

ever since THEN, the "news" has NOT been reporting "news" > it has been FABRICATING a NARRATIVE

and THAT is a FACT

a fabricated narrative they EXPECT us to obediently be-LIE-ve ?

another fact is that this generation of a Social Narrative is for the EXPLICIT purpose of CONTROL and domination ~ over US!

again, they are NOT our friends

but yet ANOTHER difference between MSM and the alternative media and those of us who are their audience?

MSM is a very organized, synchronized, methodical malevolent attack that they are PAID to perform:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI

the TRUE alternative media? is born of the heart, the desire for Truth, to assist, to support humanity AS our friends

have they been infiltrated? of course, i just did a whole post on their blueprints that was already several years old that spoke about plants, infiltration into social media, engagement for the purpose of division and specific goal to UNDERMINE movements particularly gaining positions of authority to avoid being suspect and further "groom" and "condition" unsuspecting and trusting members

i will look up post and place it here.

i highly suggest a thorough understanding of the source i provided. because to engage in a discussion without a CLEAR understanding of the FACTS can't really arrive at any type of conclusion above the realm of speculation

please see here and here

one further point. those alternative media AND assets utilized for the purpose of subversion? (telling us lies, intentionally misleading)

ARE under the DIRECT control of those that control the MSM

they are just wearing a different "hat"

therefore, they are NOT in fact, alternative media are they?

[PurpleLama]

There are a few real journalists out there. None have stayed with mainstream media, and while their work is not as sensational as a lot of what has come across PA over the years,it is oftentimes scarier to know the truth. I bet I could make a list that disaffected liberals and disaffected conservatives could agree upon. That said, there are a lot of alt media personalities on the right that came out in the last few years that are worse than useless, they are full blown agitprop.

[iota]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
There are a few real journalists out there. None have stayed with mainstream media, and while their work is not as sensational as a lot of what has come across PA over the years,it is oftentimes scarier to know the truth. I bet I could make a list that disaffected liberals and disaffected conservatives could agree upon. That said, there are a lot of alt media personalities on the right that came out in the last few years that are worse than useless, they are full blown agitprop.

these are two VERY different entities and agendas

Posted by iota (here)

MSM is a very organized, synchronized, methodical malevolent attack that they are PAID to perform:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI

the TRUE alternative media? is born of the heart, the desire for Truth, to assist, to support humanity AS our friends

have they been infiltrated? of course, i just did a whole post on their blueprints that was already several years old that spoke about plants, infiltration into social media, engagement for the purpose of division and specific goal to UNDERMINE movements particularly gaining positions of authority to avoid being suspect and further "groom" and "condition" unsuspecting and trusting members


i will look up post and place it here

i highly suggest a thorough understanding of the source i provided.

please see here and here

because to engage in a discussion without a CLEAR understanding of the FACTS can't really arrive at any type of conclusion above the realm of speculation

eta:
the fact is that a rose? by ANY other name? is STILL a rose

just because they wear the "hat" of alternative media?

if the paycheck or alignment is the SAME as that of MSM?

then they are NOT , in fact, "alternative" are they?

[iota]

by the way, as i mentioned, this was THE issue that catapulted me into action

awoke me from my deep slumber

and since 2013?

i have had hundreds of conversations on this EXACT issue

and NOT ONE

including a former FB_ agent? (who was an ACTUAL agent at the time the conversation took place?)

FAILED to understand the FACTS i presented

particularly AFTER 2016 when Trump introduced "FAKE News" into the national narrative

BECAUSE as i would point out?

they TOLD us it was "FAKE News"

it is NOT THEIR fault that WE laughed



once you commit to TRUTH?

what is false? stands out CLEARLY

[PurpleLama]

It was actually someone on CNN, in reference to the "shooting" at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, that said something to the effect of "when fake news hurts real people", and when Trump heard that, he picked it up and ran with it. I recall, as I was tracking pizzagate pretty closely at the time.

In regards to wanting to know the truth, that is the essential purpose of this forum, and upon that desire we can all agree. We should be wary of throwing out too much "friendly fire" against our allies here, because so much of apparent politics can be far less essential than seeking truth above all.

It is really unfortunate to see would be friends attack each other over what some of us see as mere superficial personalities made for TV, while others might be caught up in the moment and imagine some sort of loyalty to such figures we could never know, not like we have this opportunity to know one another here on this board.

[iota]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
It was actually someone on CNN, in reference to the "shooting" at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, that said something to the effect of "when fake news hurts real people", and when Trump heard that, he picked it up and ran with it. I recall, as I was tracking pizzagate pretty closely at the time.

In regards to wanting to know the truth, that is the essential purpose of this forum, and upon that desire we can all agree. We should be wary of throwing out too much "friendly fire" against our allies here, because so much of apparent politics can be far less essential than seeking truth above all.

It is really unfortunate to see would be friends attack each other over what some of us see as mere superficial personalities made for TV, while others might be caught up in the moment and imagine some sort of loyalty to such figures we could never know, not like we have this opportunity to know one another here on this board.

from all that i've seen? THAT is one of their primary objectives .. to divide

this is done by careful orchestration of engagement into insignificant issues that have the potential to divide and RE-direction of focus AWAY from TRUTH

and the MAIN agents of dissemination AND direction of the Social Narrative?

IS the MSM, it is through THEM that the people of this country are being deceived

and now they seek to infiltrate alternative media for the same purpose

to both DIVIDE and UNDERMINE our movement

which would be UNSTOPPABLE if left unimpeded

they KNOW this and therefore do ALL within their power to undermine us

it is WHY i oppose ALL tenets of the Social Narrative

they are sourced in deception

If it is aligned with the social narrative? Its intent or purpose?

I am opposed

irrespective of the individual SOURCE of dissemination

[rgray222]

I think most people believe that the lions share of the mainstream media is dishonest and corrupt. it is almost impossible to put a percentage number on how much news is fake, fabricated or just misinformation. It is difficult because most of the media pepper real news with lies. Also, a favorite tactic of the media is lying by omission, when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. It also includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Another favorite tactic of the mainstream media is word choice. For instance, we spend on defense but yet we invest in education and food stamps. It may seem like a subtle difference but it is an ingenious use of words that make a huge difference over time.

Most people focus on lies when in fact it is the manipulation of the public by the media which is so evil. The media have gotten so bad about manipulating the public for political gain that they will occasionally acknowledge what they are doing and justify it by saying it is for the good of the people.
I do believe the mainstream media are speaking with one large amplified megaphone. This became "hugely" apparent during the Russian Collusion investigations.

I am not even sure who the alternative media is anymore. They used to be free of large corporations and government influence but that does not seem to be the case anymore. They used to be free from monetary influences, now it is all about book sales and/or clicks on websites. We also see a host of alternative media notables being accused of doing the bidding of the government and/or corporations. Who knows the truth. The alternative media used to give voice to such groups and cause as Black Lives Matter or the 'metoo' movement. Now such movements and groups are strongly supported by mainstream media and even the government because they recognize the power and money in politics.

It is extremely hard but not impossible to get to the truth. It takes time and effort whether you are walking through the mainstream media or the alternative media minefield.