Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[mariomike]

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,

Media Bias [Merged]

The eminent ERC says it far more eloquently then I do in my drive by posts. https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2019/11/08/its-time-to-end-this-rubbish/

www.milnet.ca

 

[ModlrMike]

If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you do, you're misinformed.
Mark Twain (unconfirmed)

 

[dapaterson]

You can't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Mick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Cool. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cool. Thanks for trolling.

 

[Mick]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Mick]

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.

 

[Pikache]

For those on DWAN, CFINTCOM OSINT cell has resources on evaluating media sources and such

 

[Mick]

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]

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.

 

[MilEME09]

Clear majority of Canadians think feds ‘all talk and no action’ on military misconduct: Ipsos - National | Globalnews.ca

Across demographic categories, 75 per cent of respondents said the government and military leaders are "all talk and no action" on sexual harassment in the Canadian Forces.

globalnews.ca

Looks like the vast majority don't trust the government to fix the problem, not surprising.

 

[Haggis]

Looks like the vast majority don't trust the government to fix the problem, not surprising.

Yet, they will be re-elected again.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

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]