What are easy to present criticisms of mainstream outlets like BBC and CNN? - eviltoast

While it is easy to use phrases like “use critical thinking”, this is not easy for elders or cousins in families to be told, as this is not lucid to understand in a snap. It is essential for criticism to be easily communicable to ordinary people that watch Google Feed or MSN News daily, and I feel that such criticism is not even easy to access or read, considering ordinary people have been cornered from MSM, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and rest of Big Tech and Western media apparatus.

If you love your BBC and CNN feeds, avoid this post, this is not for you.

    • plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s kinda weird. The BBC is not out their intentionally doing bad journalism at an institutional level, but I’m sure it happens. It’d be good to learn about these cases and their causes.

        • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that the BBC is openly using a US funded Australian cyber expert as a source.

          The story is about Chinese state funded influencers not operating openly.

          Can you not see the difference?

          What’s happened to Hong Kong press freedoms since China took it back?

          • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            USA calls Australia its Deputy Sheriff in Asian region, and has a military base where Australians are prohibited from entering. Australia is a vassal state of USA. I wonder if there must be a conflict of interest, especially with Australia’s balls tightly clutches with ASPI funded by US weapon manufacturers.

            Can you not see the problem?

            Do I even have to elaborate on Council of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg and Murdoch media, USAGM outlets, NED funded news and media outlets, NGOs, “independent” presstitutes? Do I have to elaborate on Julian Assange?

            Hong Kong is still higher on Freedom Index than USA. Freedom and democracy are in no way tied to Anglo neoliberal dictatorship democracy model.

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Come on, mate. Hong Kong’s freedom index score is 42, USA is 83, Australia is 95 (source). At least try and avoid making things up if you want to seem like you’re having a good faith discussion.

              Does that mean USA and Australia don’t have problems? Of course they have problems, big ones even, you mentioned some genuine problems here in your comment. That’s not the issue at hand though. Nobody is claiming these countries are problem free. It’s you who is claiming certain news outlets are untrustworthy propaganda pieces. You made a claim, got a reasonable response and now it seems you are gish galloping.

              It’s starting to feel like you have an agenda though to be honest. I personally find your assertion that people who love BBC/CNN are incapable of criticising them quite unhealthy. We can and should be critical of things especially things we are fans of.

              • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                > you are gish galloping.

                I can see why its futile to talk to westerners. I will talk to someone and then someone like you will come and shit all over like a crow and fly away. Brandolini’s Law takes effect and people like us are forced to spend 10x the effort to correct misinformation.

                Hong Kong used to be at #3 while USA was at #17. How come the very day Hong Kong gets freed of UK colonialism after more than 90 years, and implements National Security Law to protect itself, its “freedom” drops down? Is being a vassal state or colony of UK/USA the marker of freedom in these indexes? If so, the index seems to be a marker of how much of a western bootlicker a country really is, making “freedom” just a brand name with no worth.

                It is a well established fact that Hong Kong “protest” was a CIA manufactured riot. Even Ted Cruz went to cheer rioters. What if a major Chinese politician went to USA to cheer Jan 6 insurrection? All of you would screech blackboards over it.

                • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hong Kong used to be at #3 while USA was at #17. How come the very day Hong Kong gets freed of UK colonialism after more than 90 years, and implements National Security Law to protect itself, its “freedom” drops down?

                  I think this would be useful for you to reflect on.

                  Also Wikipedia has a great article on Gish galloping if you’re in a country where you can access that.

      • christophski@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seems that you have a strict view of how someone should “love” something. Not everyone is like that. I read the BBC and fully appreciate it but I am very open to any and all criticism of it.

          • Big P@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is it not possible to consume a variety of different media outlets and form your own opinion based on the information available across the spectrum rather than decided to blanket ban specific news outlets?

            • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Possible but only if you are honest with yourself and not see yourself tied to “preserving Anglo empire” and are not their parrot. What you feed your brain, you become that. So by constantly viewing all of the global news media, out of which roughly 90% is Western media controlled by handful groups (NED/CIA, Bilderberg, Murdoch and CFR), you will see the same bullshit but differently phrased across 90% of the entire global media you seek to consume to form your own opinion, and end up not forming your own opinion. You will see the 2% Chinese and Russian media as not representative of majority of news, where majority of news is already invented by West to manufacture consent from you to act as their mindless parrot.

              • w2qw@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you suggest good places in your opinion to get news on the Chinese/Russian situations?

                • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In order of difficulty and depth: Hakim, The New Atlas, The Deprogram, Silk and Steel Podcast, Revolutionary Left Radio

  • battleshack@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Big media companies are made up of people. Even the best journalists are prone to making mistakes. Sensationalist stories should always be read at an arms length. And even some respectable news organisations hire viral copywriters to generate ad-views. Don’t read that shit.

    But do read news from real journalistic publishers with a professional principal editor. Don’t fall into the deep end conpiracy snuff trap.

  • w2qw@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No one is going to flip to your position in a simple argument. If you disagree with them youll need to understand why. Start trying to find out about their position rather than evangelizing yours. If you do that they might open up doubts about theirs.

  • guojing@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    They blindly repeat what western politicians say, including war propaganda (like alleged “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq). When politicians from other countries say something against the western agenda, it is completely distorted to paint them as evil. Its not fact based at all, and doesnt even pretend to be neutral.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      The Iraq and Afghanistan War examples are blatant and nice, but there should be more and easier ways to communicate the gist of the idea. It is hard, that is why I made the post. It is a real, big problem.

  • AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Follow some of their citations and quotes, especially in terms of “Billy Bob, an expert on .” Research those people. I’ve found that way too many of them are less than credible.

    Not even the worst example I’ve seen:

  • beansniffer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    Take a topic that you know. Something related to your field of work, or your special interest, whatever. Now watch a news video about that topic and notice how laughably wrong they get even basic details. Most people can relate to how wrong the media gets on a topic they’re intimately familiar with but then also think they get topics right when talking about other things like world affairs.

    • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      This is an excellent approach. That being said, nearly all the boomers I know who used to rip on me for not having a college degree are now the very same people who say shit like "oh MISTER scientist over here with his fancy education, thinks he knows EVERYTHING about climate change!" when climate change was a major component of my research.

      Boomers’ unique problem is that it’s deeply ingrained in their minds that unless the man on the TV talks about a subject, they shouldn’t take said subject seriously. I told boomers about January 6th weeks before it happened and pointed to a number of leaked discussions from the Proud Boys and various far-right groups, but no-- I was dismissed as an alarmist.

      Then when January 6th DID happen, the boomers I know who watch CNN did a complete 180 and acted as if "OBVIOUSLY this was going to happen", suddenly parroting word for word what CNN anchors were saying.

      The problem as I see it is that boomers and most gullible people put far too much weight into the one way conversation that is TV. There’s no comments section for people to call out mistakes and provided sources and despite how often boomers go on their phone, they conveniently claim they’re too old to use Google and learn how to fact check. Instead, if their friend Bob tells them he heard from a friend that [bullshit] happened, they’re more inclined to just roll with it and believe Bob because Bob is their friend, and their friends are like themselves-- trustworthy and knowledgeable! Because Bob has experience!

      Personally, I’ve given up talking to boomers about anything political/scientific. I’d much rather talk to millennials who are at the very least, far less inclined to fall for the "man on TV told me so, and man on TV can’t just lie on TV-- they have high broadcasting standards" trap. Boomers have this bizarre belief that whatever news source they consider reputable, be it CNN or FOX, they simply wouldn’t be allowed to push incorrect or intentionally misleading/sensationalist news because they seriously believe that news corporations hold themselves to standards no different than peer-reviewed academic journals.

      I don’t think all boomers are hopelessly ignorant, but I have a finite amount of time and patience. Bearing that in mind, I’d rather spend an hour explaining a topic like climate change to a truly open-minded millennial/Gen X/Gen Z who is genuinely willing to learn, than 3 hours with a boomer who by the end of the discussion just sort of pulls the classic "ehhh you say that but I don’t know…" nonsense.

      I’m at a point where I sort of view their level of gullibility at the point of being a mental health issue because of how deeply it impacts various aspects of their lives, and I’m not an expert on mental health issues. I think capitalism has done a number on these peoples’ brains and that’s the elephant in the room.

      edit: I should also add that conservatives are also another group I simply don’t have the patience to talk to, for similar reasons. Young conservatives share the same fundamentally flawed approach to how they learn as boomers but their approach is arguably even worse because of how they use the internet as an echo chamber, without ever putting any meaningful effort into challenging their views.

      • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 years ago

        I can understand, it is tough. Even I try to come up with ways, but Daniel Dumbrill for example is insanely good at communicating critical ideas in a civil manner. I am thinking that we as a community could do that too. In fact, I do come up with creative ideas, but breaking the ice with people around you who are so deeply indoctrinated becomes really hard.