Mainstream vs. Alternative

[iota]

hi everyone

i'm very glad to see an opening to have this discussion at long last

i have opened a thread in members only section here

grabbing a cup of coffee and see you in a bit!

[Gracy]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
I created the following meme about three years ago to reflect my own opinion:

"The only thing I believe in the New York Times are the recipes."

I hear ya, and by and large I agree, but see here's another facet of how I'm looking at this here critter: I look at the New York Times as very similar to The Washington Post, usually the pages would be useful only as good old fashion outhouse material, but there are exceptions. Like the old saying "there's an exception to every rule".

So let's take The Washington Post for example, last December they released "The Afghanistan Papers", detailing all of the fraud waste and abuse that had been going into that horrible and endless war.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hoCI4QQAvD_BwE

Now that was some good s##t, nothing to sneeze at, and predictably the story never caught fire in the rest of mainstream media, but they did put the story out there, and I have to give credit where credit's due.

For me, this whole "mainstream vs. alternative" basically boils down to two main talking points: Nuance, and consistency.

Mainstream media as a whole is raked through the mud here, rightfully so, and I have no problem with that. For the most part it's well deserved so let's make that crystal clear!

But what I do have a problem with for instance is seeing the New York Times for example, dragged through the mud one day, but headlined like a poster child the next because they happened to report something that is favorable to the overall narrative.

That's not being consistent! Either the NYT is outhouse material or it's not, it can't be both depending on convenience of what and how they may be covering at any given time.

Here's a good scenario: Out of nowhere, the NYT publishes an article detailing how Donald J. Trump has been wronged in a certain area, and they (for a change!) are pointing it out. It's not consistent to constantly harp on msm is 100% BS, but then turn around and triumphantly post that headline because it's pleasing to one's confirmation bias.

That's something I take issue with, just be consistent is all. If all of msm reporting is 100% fake news, then it should never, ever, be the source of a news event.

Of course the flip side of that coin is alt media is 100% correct, but that's for a different scenario, and it goes straight back to nuance.

[Arcturian108]

Posted by Gracy (here)

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
I created the following meme about three years ago to reflect my own opinion:

"The only thing I believe in the New York Times are the recipes."

I hear ya, and by and large I agree, but see here's another facet of how I'm looking at this here critter: I look at the New York Times as very similar to The Washington Post, usually the pages would be useful only as good old fashion outhouse material, but there are exceptions. Like the old saying "there's an exception to every rule".

So let's take The Washington Post for example, last December they released "The Afghanistan Papers", detailing all of the fraud waste and abuse that had been going into that horrible and endless war.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hoCI4QQAvD_BwE

Now that was some good s##t, nothing to sneeze at, and predictably the story never caught fire in the rest of mainstream media, but they did put the story out there, and I have to give credit where credit's due.

For me, this whole "mainstream vs. alternative" basically boils down to two main talking points: Nuance, and consistency.

Mainstream media as a whole is raked through the mud here, rightfully so, and I have no problem with that. For the most part it's well deserved so let's make that crystal clear!

But what I do have a problem with for instance is seeing the New York Times for example, dragged through the mud one day, but headlined like a poster child the next because they happened to report something that is favorable to the overall narrative.

That's not being consistent! Either the NYT is outhouse material or it's not, it can't be both depending on convenience of what and how they may be covering at any given time.

Here's a good scenario: Out of nowhere, the NYT publishes an article detailing how Donald J. Trump has been wronged in a certain area, and they (for a change!) are pointing it out. It's not consistent to constantly harp on msm is 100% BS, but then turn around and triumphantly post that headline because it's pleasing to one's confirmation bias.

That's something I take issue with, just be consistent is all. If all of msm reporting is 100% fake news, then it should never, ever, be the source of a news event.

Of course the flip side of that coin is alt media is 100% correct, but that's for a different scenario, and it goes straight back to nuance.

Good propaganda tells the truth some of the time.

[iota]

Gracy i have asked you a question here


PRIOR to AutumnW's entrance on the thread:

did you or did you not discuss it with him ?

[AutumnW]

Gracy, as to your point the New York Times featured a long self critical piece by one of their journalists. It was about how the lies of one of their own distorted the hell out of coverage of (I think it was) war in Syria. She was referring to 'terrorists' and then bull****ting about being in their company and how scared she was...a true Perils of Pauline major story. They went so far as to roast themselves and then further went on to explain how it distorted not only their coverage of events but other media who ran with their story.

And this could have been for purely self serving reasons, like, they were losing market share, but still they did stoop to admit they were wrong.

No 'self respecting' youtube influencer rube shouting at the top of his lungs would ever admit to being completely wrong and apologize to his audience. Maybe it's happened but I can't remember when, unless there was a lawsuit pending.

[Vangelo]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Gracy, as to your point the New York Times featured a long self critical piece by one of their journalists. It was about how the lies of one of their own distorted the hell out of coverage of (I think it was) war in Syria. She was referring to 'terrorists' and then bull****ting about being in their company and how scared she was...a true Perils of Pauline major story. They went so far as to roast themselves and then further went on to explain how it distorted not only their coverage of events but other media who ran with their story.

And this could have been for purely self serving reasons, like, they were losing market share, but still they did stoop to admit they were wrong.

AutumnW, referring to the bold text above, what is your point? Are you implying that the NYT is therefore more believable? Or are you suggesting something else?

No 'self respecting' youtube influencer rube shouting at the top of his lungs would ever admit to being completely wrong and apologize to his audience.

Again, I am not quite sure what your message is with the above quote? Please elaborate.

BTW: Many of the independent news channels I follow have retracted erroneous statements when circumstances warranted it.

... Maybe it's happened but I can't remember when, unless there was a lawsuit pending.

You seem to be suggesting that only YouTube influencers would retract something in response to a legal threat. I guess you have never seen the Project Veritas Wall Of Shame

[AutumnW]

Vangelo, To be more specific, I meant podcasters who shout, use clickbait, ridicule, casual with the truth and on a spectrum from left to right. Do these people ever apologize when confronted? No, they just blow past it, ignore obvious facts, play hackey sack with facts.

Now the NY Times, I read very selectively because they are pompous and have ties with the CIA. They are definitely cheerleaders for war and empire. So it really struck me as something fantastic when they traced the etymology of their own text back to its roots and described how it spread like a cancer and how damaging it was -- and damaging in a global way.

Have they turned a corner? I don't read enough of their political coverage to get a sense of it. I like their science and economics section and the magazine on Sundays.

[jaybee]

I don't know where we would be if it wasn't for the 'Alternative' Media....

There is bound to be some infiltration by organized dishonest (dark) forces - that's how they would try to destroy from within - confuse - muddy the waters - create disunity - and one of the main things as well, I think, would be so those who are following the Government / Global Elite line have something they can pull out of the bag and feel that they have some evidence on their side.... like pushing such and such a person can't be trusted because they did this or that -

But the MSM are working for the cabal of mega rich individuals and families 24/7 - the perpetrators, couldn't have pulled the Pandemic Hoax + 'Vaccine' agenda off - and the ongoing social engineering off, without the total integration and control of the main media outlets.... not just the news - the Soaps - - the adverts - entertainment - 24/7 propaganda -

Our only relief from that is the Alternative Media and so Alternative Media is bound to be a target of those wanting to create doubts in that direction...

The process of censorship has been creeping in stealthily and some indication of who the wanna~be dictators fear is who they get rid of - I believe one of the first to be de~platformed and removed from social media was Mike Adams aka the Health Ranger... . then Alex Jones - and probably others who aren't so famous but were probably judged to be potential serious threat....

They couldn't just get rid of everyone who doesn't toe the line in one big swoop because the plan is to do it gradually so it isn't too obvious - some high profile people with large followings still manage to survive the purge - Jimmy Dore for example - and Tim Pool -

Even though we get all this stuff - mainstream and alternative through the internet / TV and not face to face - I do believe that intuition, telepathy etc still comes into play - and you can kind of feel who to trust and who not to trust - by the effects they create and the general vibe...

just a little ponder on the subject...

[Gracy]

Posted by jaybee (here)
I don't know where we would be if it wasn't for the 'Alternative' Media....

Same here jaybee, and thank you for putting it that way! Let me share my own quick story on how that's true for me as well, and why:

I was slow to catch on, late to the party so to speak, on realizing what I had really seen on that fateful day of 9/11/2001, and how deeply I had brought into the ensuing propaganda by that time. I bought it all hook, line, and sinker. /They hate us because of our freedoms!/ they're gonna keep doing it so we need to harden our airports/the war on terror starts in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, then wherever it has to go we'll leave no stone unturned!/ we need The Patriot Act!/ And yada yada yada, you know the whole ridiculous war mongering spiel.

A few years later, while still mightily buying into it, came home from work one day to see someone had been passing out leaflets in the neighborhood, and there was one hung on my doorknob. Just scanned it briefly with my usual disinterest in such things, it was from an outlet called "InfoWars", and they were saying 9/11 was a false flag same as the Reichstag fire that put Hitler in power. Well I had never even heard of a false flag, or any Reichstag fire, but they gave a nice concise overview of both, and that was that.

Didn't give it much thought afterwards, although here and there I'd catch wind of people saying similar things about 9/11, they always reminded me of that initial flyer, but then it was always quickly dismissed. Like if there was something to it, the t.v. would have mentioned something about it right?

FOX NEWS was my news source at the time, I believed them 100% down the line of both their news and commentary, and by goddess they would tell me, just like my President George W. Bush, who would NEVER lie to me!

Come along around 2011, that little flyer kept nibbling at my sub conscious, it started to bother me more and more, until one night I couldn't sleep because of it, and finally decided to put it to bed once and for all by going to the computers in the wee hours and go scouring around until I could disprove of the whole matter once and for all, move on with my life, and start getting some sleep to boot!

Well guess where I wound up rather quickly, InfoWars LOL! That very night was where my old life came to a screeching halt, and a new life was born. By the time the sun was coming up I was nearly in a state of shock, had seen sufficient video, ways of looking at the footage of the towers crumbling that I was previously blinded to, and by the point it was time to get ready for work, all I could think was "holy s##t, it's TRUE!!!"

Next thing you know I had devoured a David Icke book, and there was no turning back...

But here was the catch, and this is what I'm trying to point out. I had recently found out msm was full of it, but I was still way too new and naive in all this stuff, and wound up getting hopelessly lost down, what were in retrospect, rabbit holes; and some of them were really starting to make me angry and paranoid! "They're coming to get me! They're already putting people in FEMA camps! Time to arm up because this may come to a shootout! etc...

It literally destroyed my life for a couple of years, and friends started distancing themselves because I would try to get them to see the menacing threats I was seeing all around us, they were everywhere! Again in retrospect, most of them were not figments of my imagination, the threats were there and they still are, but I was so freaked out by the magnitude/the shock of what I had been exposed to, my imagination was exaggerating those very real threats by orders of magnitude.

My husband even left me, he couldn't take it any more, and during the months I found myself totally alone, there came that low point where I had to come to grips with what was happening to me. I slowly began to realize I needed to take a deep breath, take a nice big pause, and step back from it all.

If for nothing else, then for the sake of my own peace of mind and sanity...

It took a while, but what had happened was I had been so out of balance one way, believing everything mainstream media told me, that I had rocketed to that polar opposite and was believing everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, that alt media was telling me. I was under the great misconception that I had escaped the great lie, and found the great truth; but that's not how it works, and I took some serious lumps in learning that lesson in the cruelest of hard ways.

Turned out the message an elder of mine who had witten the following with the greatest of care in my high school yearbook, had been spot on accurate all those years ago: "Gracy, always remember, moderation is the key to success".

So back to topic, yes, there are many great truths in alternative media, and there is little to learn from mainstream media. Alt media save me from being a propagandized walking zombie for the rest of my days; however, there are a great number of pitfalls in alt media, they will grab you by your ears and take you for Mr. Toad's Wild Ride if you're not careful, if you haven't honed that proper discernment skills.

And I still carry those deep scars to prove it.

Hopefully my little story helps clarify my view of media vs. alt media. It's by no means a slam on alt media message, it's a be careful message from someone who's been there done that.

[AutumnW]

Thank you, Gracy. That was really interesting and very honest and it's a route so many have taken, but are having a tough time extricating themselves from, as they are surrounded by the like minded, online, and not subject to modifying influences of being in a real world community. It's a new social phenomenon and one that has no easy answers. Blessings

[jaybee]

Posted by Gracy (here)

discernment

exactly

noun
the ability to judge well.

and it comes with observation, critical thinking and practice ....

[Dubsy]

Posted by Gracy (here)
It literally destroyed my life for a couple of years, and friends started distancing themselves because I would try to get them to see the menacing threats I was seeing all around us, they were everywhere! Again in retrospect, most of them were not figments of my imagination, the threats were there and they still are, but I was so freaked out by the magnitude/the shock of what I had been exposed to, my imagination was exaggerating those very real threats by orders of magnitude.

My husband even left me, he couldn't take it any more, and during the months I found myself totally alone, there came that low point where I had to come to grips with what was happening to me. I slowly began to realize I needed to take a deep breath, take a nice big pause, and step back from it all.

If for nothing else, then for the sake of my own peace of mind and sanity...

It took a while, but what had happened was I had been so out of balance one way, believing everything mainstream media told me, that I had rocketed to that polar opposite and was believing everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, that alt media was telling me. I was under the great misconception that I had escaped the great lie, and found the great truth; but that's not how it works, and I took some serious lumps in learning that lesson in the cruelest of hard ways.

Turned out the message an elder of mine who had witten the following with the greatest of care in my high school yearbook, had been spot on accurate all those years ago: "Gracy, always remember, moderation is the key to success".

Such an honest and heartfelt description , Gracy

I found myself smiling, even though your description was nothing to smile about, - as I was ticking off the exact parallel experiences and emotions in my own life.

A teacher once wrote on my report -- 'Dubsy' is a model student. Unfortunately he isn't a working modal.

I never had a problem digesting and regurgitating book learning and passing exams. I was seen as disruptive to many because I would openly disagree and question. -- I also know that the teacher who wrote that and caused me no end of grief with my parents, plagiarized his very smug 'quote' ....... as I've read it elsewhere since.

Back to topic - We really have to be thankful for any type of alternative media, good and bad.

It is up to us to be the 'proof readers' in a very literal sense.

One persons' truth will seem abhorrent and offensive to another guys. - In these 'enlightened' times, many are shackled by the list of boxes we have to first tick off before we begin to even consider whether a written article is a truth or a dud. Factors include ......... core beliefs, political persuasions, gender specifications (as if any these things matter and are relevant in discerning how we should position ourselves in order to understand truths from propagandized fictions ).

It has to be said that there are many people who will use these filters like they are mind controlled automatons, and hence will never get past the first sentence of a fair, albeit challenging article.

I can give the example of my host country that has zero alternative media. -- I am unwilling to give actual examples here now ...... but there actually is.

There are keywords, meme expressions that are constantly changing, that allow people here to communicate within the most draconian AI enhanced censorship the world has ever seen.

In conclusion -- I dont feel at all bad with people not agreeing with everything I say ( why should they ) I'm just so very happy that some of us can disagree on our own terms without being led by a corrupted media

[Gracy]

Posted by Dubsy (here)
Back to topic - We really have to be thankful for any type of alternative media, good and bad.

It is up to us to be the 'proof readers' in a very literal sense.

Well Dubsy, I'm for sure thankful for the good alternative media, but the bad? Not so much, except that it's of course useful in keeping those discernment skills nice and sharp.

But keeping with your point, I think the way you say 'proof readers', and I say discernment skills, could probably be used interchangeably.

I think the recent hubbub about Mike Adams teaming up with David Wilcock is another good example of why we need to keep sharp, even while swimming in supposedly safe friendly waters. There are no safe friendly waters. As has been already highlighted, just because one finally realizes the programming on mainstream media that they used to think was useful information, and flees into the open arms of alternative media, does not mean they have landed in safe friendly waters, where only bitter truths reside.

We can be taken for a ride just as easily here, as there, if we're not diligent. Sleazy used car salesman types swim in all waters... Which brings us back to Mike Adams...

I used to really like Mike Adams just a few short years ago, same as his old buddy Alex Jones, and I would always like it when Mike would fill in for Alex on his show, because I was sure to get a good rant about the 2ND Amendment, or something along those lines. But then slowly but surely I've been watching the wheels come off, to the point where as of late the rants are more and more about zombies and melting brains sort of crap.

So at first blush when I saw he's gone and interviewed our old buddy David Wilcock, I was like "well that sounds like kind of an odd combination"; but the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that "well, if you've gotten to the point where hair on fire hyperbole has become your bread and butter, then why not? In that case you'll team up with anyone who you think you can reach a larger audience, and make more money with".

So warning to newbies fresh out of the clutches of mainstream, and are all happy and wide eyed in this new and great land of opportunity. Careful with your choices, and watch your step, lest you wind up hitching your wagon to a David Wilcock or a Mike Adams type of alternative flashy, smooth talking used car salesman.

Truth does abound here, but the trick is in separating the wheat from the chaff...

P.S. Dubsy. I had troubles in school as well, was never quite able to keep in rhythm with that darn drummer lol. More than likely same as you, it took me years and years in retrospect to figure out why that was.

[ExomatrixTV]

I researched (& produced) Alternative Media for 31 years now and there are all kinds of A.M. vs MSM examples! (Good, Bad and The Ugly).

Any generalization for or against is not doing justice to the full spectrum of the truth, lately I do not even bother to correct certain way of "reasoning" as it does not help me nor the other ... most with strong opinions do not liked to be "corrected" nor being challenged (even in a friendly way) on top of that people easily can misunderstand and/or misinterpreted my intentions ... As everything is energy I have to chose my focus wisely

cheers,
John

[Gracy]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
I researched (& produced) Alternative Media for 31 years now and there are all kinds of A.M. vs MSM examples! (Good, Bad and The Ugly).

Any generalization for or against is not doing justice to the full spectrum of the truth, lately I do not even bother to correct certain way of "reasoning" as it does not help me nor the other ... most with strong opinions do not liked to be "corrected" nor being challenged (even in a friendly way) on top of that people easily can misunderstand and/or misinterpreted my intentions ... As everything is energy I have to chose my focus wisely

cheers,
John

That's perfect John, the good, the bad, and the ugly of the whole deal across the spectrum is an even more concise way of describing the gist of this thread. (I've always a big Clint Eastwood fan by the way!)

Of course with your 31 year record of studying and challenging both mainstream and alternative on the merits of their cases, and not whether you agree with them or not, I'm obviously preaching to the choir where you're concerned, and kudos there!

But as you well know all too often in alt media circles (and forget about mainstream circles!), I tend to see only one sided views of any given current issue at hand.

[Dumpster Diver]

MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Broadcasting Company

[Gracy]

Posted by Dumpster Diver (here)
MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Broadcasting Company

Well DD, while I appreciate the sentiment, and am certainly no fan of that outlet as well, but for serious conversation and analysis I respectfully request that we keep things a little more "professional" if you don't mind.

I mean obviously it goes well in a room of majority conservatives; but what about people reading here who may be at the time unknowingly open to alternative ideas other than what places like MSNBC preach.

Maybe they're subconsciously open to new ideas like I was at one point as described here, but rather than draw them in a I eventually was, you drive them away because of a cheap and gratuitous insult...

Even though David Icke has called it this, how receptive would many of us be upon hearing someone of different ideas and ways of coming at things, but flippantly refers to FOX NEWS, as FIX NEWS? Well either example is going to go over like a lead zeppelin, the two parties shall never speak again like two ships passing in the night, and the chance of possibly gaining a friend, or even possibly an ally, has been forever squandered.

It may be just me, but I don't feel either slur, whether from the right or the left, is a good look for the outstretched hand of well meaning alternative media trying to fight the good fight.

Now if we just want to keep to our own little bubble here and screw the rest "of them", well that's a different conversation, that conversation has a very low ceiling height of possible participants, and is not a conversation I'm interested in to possibly bring in new people eager to break whatever programming they may have just discovered they've been subjected to their entire lives.

[Gemma13]

Posted by Gracy (here)

Posted by Dumpster Diver (here)
MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Broadcasting Company

Well DD, while I appreciate the sentiment, and am certainly no fan of that outlet as well, but for serious conversation and analysis I respectfully request that we keep things a little more "professional" if you don't mind.

I mean obviously it goes well in a room of majority conservatives; but what about people reading here who may be at the time unknowingly open to alternative ideas other than what places like MSNBC preach.

Maybe they're subconsciously open to new ideas like I was at one point as described here, but rather than draw them in a I eventually was, you drive them away because of a cheap and gratuitous insult...

Even though David Icke has called it this, how receptive would many of us be upon hearing someone of different ideas and ways of coming at things, but flippantly refers to FOX NEWS, as FIX NEWS? Well either example is going to go over like a lead zeppelin, the two parties shall never speak again like two ships passing in the night, and the chance of possibly gaining a friend, or even possibly an ally, has been forever squandered.

It may be just me, but I don't feel either slur, whether from the right or the left, is a good look for the outstretched hand of well meaning alternative media trying to fight the good fight.

Now if we just want to keep to our own little bubble here and screw the rest "of them", well that's a different conversation, that conversation has a very low ceiling height of possible participants, and is not a conversation I'm interested in to possibly bring in new people eager to break whatever programming they may have just discovered they've been subjected to their entire lives.

Gracy thank you for this reminder!  Always needed.

It is so hard to not feel jaded about the crap sold and swallowed out there, and some days all I want to do is scream profanities at it all because it makes ME feel good.

But it isn't helping if I let it spill over to where it will do harm not good.  And, sigh, I know that.  I force myself to retreat and censor at those times to regain balance, so I can rise above and hopefully use the wiser approach more often than not.  A constant daily challenge on this planet though!

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Gracy (here)

Posted by Dumpster Diver (here)
MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Broadcasting Company

Well DD, while I appreciate the sentiment, and am certainly no fan of that outlet as well, but for serious conversation and analysis I respectfully request that we keep things a little more "professional" if you don't mind.

MSM= Mostly Satanic Mind-control.

There you go, I fixed it for both of you.

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by Dumpster Diver (here)
MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Broadcasting Company

MSNBC = Mostly Satanic National Brainwashing Company