• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
130
Points
780
If all one knows is what one reads in the news, it's difficult to know very much, or know it very accurately. (Look up Gell-Mann amnesia.)

The subset of all information which is the information posted here is very, very small.

Media bias checks have ceased to be meaningful, except to those living in bubbles isolated from the reporters' activism at the NYT and WaPo (most notable for their former reputations, but not the only ones), and the repeated inability of huge agencies to get simple stories correct or to admit egregious incompetence or bias when it happens (CBS is back in the news for being unable to do the news.)

We have regrettably reached the point at which bias/partisanship is so pronounced in the large media organizations that they can no longer be trusted on political and social matters; a prudent person must cross-examine everything by reading outside the "green box".
For more discussion ( 70 pages ) of the above,

 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you do, you're misinformed.
Mark Twain (unconfirmed)
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
35
Points
380
If all one knows is what one reads in the news, it's difficult to know very much, or know it very accurately. (Look up Gell-Mann amnesia.)

The subset of all information which is the information posted here is very, very small.

Media bias checks have ceased to be meaningful, except to those living in bubbles isolated from the reporters' activism at the NYT and WaPo (most notable for their former reputations, but not the only ones), and the repeated inability of huge agencies to get simple stories correct or to admit egregious incompetence or bias when it happens (CBS is back in the news for being unable to do the news.)

We have regrettably reached the point at which bias/partisanship is so pronounced in the large media organizations that they can no longer be trusted on political and social matters; a prudent person must cross-examine everything by reading outside the "green box".
I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.

What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?

Genuinely curious.

edit: spelling
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,142
Points
910
I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.

What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?

Genuinely curious.

edit: spelling

The Economist.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
41
Points
330
I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.

What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?

Genuinely curious.

edit: spelling
You have to do much more than read other news sources. It's pretty bad out there. When the news is commenting on a hearing for example, it's best for you to watch the actual hearing and listen to the testimony or read the official transcript. If the news is commenting on an incident that happened to be video recorded, for an informed opinion it's best if you view the entire video yourself. If the news is commenting on what a public figure said, for an informed opinion you'd best go listen to all what was actually said by that person not what the news said they said.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?
Genuinely curious.

A genuinely curious person would already have explored the web and answered his own question.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
35
Points
380
Cool. Thanks for trolling.
Nope. If one were truly serious about elevating understanding and discussion on current affairs on this site, there are more effective ways than long-winded pontifications that contain no real information other than an obscure Michael Crichton reference.

Others, like QV etc were polite enough to offer a response. If you can't elaborate on what resources you recommend, why post at all.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
"Gell-Mann amnesia" is just a name for an idea: if articles about subjects on which a reader is knowledgeable are not very reliable, why would a reader assume any other articles are more reliable? Since I've read numerous uses of the name over the past few years, I don't consider it obscure.

If it's hard to find more "current events" sources, start with RealClearPolitics and its associated sites (RealClearPolicy, RealClearScience, etc) and branch out from there.

I see no point trying to recapitulate all the stories covering academic and newsroom activism and collusion in support of preferred political narratives. The major media agencies gossip about each other often enough that it is almost impossible to miss. Everyone must decide for himself at what point a source becomes insufficiently trustworthy to accept its claims without seeing what others have to say.

Likewise, when politicians and other prominent persons behave discreditably and unethically and immorally, they are untrustworthy. Every occasion on which they choose the path leading away from inquiry and discussion and accountability increases untrustworthiness. It doesn't mean they are never right; it does mean nothing should be accepted without verification, preferably from differently aligned sources.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Cool. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
I'm going to agree with you here and say that Brad is trolling, not you.

To answer your question, I'll go against the majority here and say that I believe the majority of main stream media, no matter how biased, present factually correct news. The real problem lies in how they spin the overall impact of their stories, how they manipulate your reaction to it, and what exactly they AREN'T saying. What I like to do is bounce between new outlets from opposing sides and see what the differences and commonalities are. For example, I read cnn and fox news, fully aware that they are both biased. For less biased news, I would recommend Aljazeera, BBC, and the (Removed IAW site guidelines).

Regards:

The Staff
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick

Member
Reaction score
35
Points
380
Thank you for the (second) reply, Brad. I agree with you that readers should go further than blindly accepting "the news", as presented as
"fact".

While everyone has their own personal biases, I would propose that the vast majority of posters who contribute to this site are able to see through at least some of the inherent biases of the various mainstream news sources, especially concerning subjects where they may have considerable experience or interest.

As I mentioned, I read the sources on the CFC SOMNIA site, as well as CPAC and C-SPAN to see parliamentary / congressional testimony etc in context (in line with what QV suggests).

I will take a look at your suggestions - thank you.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
35
Points
380
I'm going to agree with you here and say that Brad is trolling, not you.

To answer your question, I'll go against the majority here and say that I believe the majority of main stream media, no matter how biased, present factually correct news. The real problem lies in how they spin the overall impact of their stories, how they manipulate your reaction to it, and what exactly they AREN'T saying. What I like to do is bounce between new outlets from opposing sides and see what the differences and commonalities are. For example, I read cnn and fox news, fully aware that they are both biased. For less biased news, I would recommend Aljazeera, BBC, and the Defence Watch portion of the Ottawa Citizen.
I agree with your take on the MSM re facts and spin. After I finish with CTV / CBC / Global, it's on to CNN and Fox (where the competing agendas are plainly visible).

I think "gotcha" and sensationalist journalism is also playing a role in eroding trust. Instead of asking reasonable / well-considered questions, traps are set for juicy sound bites.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,142
Points
910
I agree with your take on the MSM re facts and spin. After I finish with CTV / CBC / Global, it's on to CNN and Fox (where the competing agendas are plainly visible).

I think "gotcha" and sensationalist journalism is also playing a role in eroding trust. Instead of asking reasonable / well-considered questions, traps are set for juicy sound bites.
A general decline in the ability of many to think critically might be an issue too.
 

rmc_wannabe

Full Member
Reaction score
41
Points
330
Yet, they will be re-elected again.

The current crop of alternatives are nothing to write home about either though.

Choosing a politician to vote for is like trying to figure out which limb you want broken... all options suck. Some more than others. The sad part, is that for how corrupt and incompetent the current liberal government is, they will get re-elected because people don't believe they have a viable alternative at the moment; so they will put up with it instead of upsetting the apple cart.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
700
Points
860
Episode 1 Halloween GIF by The Simpsons
 
Top