TheBlackSheep » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:10 pm wrote:jakell » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:28 am wrote:A problem is that there isn't really such a thing as strict Alex Jonesism, or Ickeism any more, their output has become much broader, possibly due to their enormous and mainly one-way output
So I agree, it isn't really useful to criticise based on the names alone. The names however, do provide a vaguely useful signpost, but it is too vague and we also need some description of the issues in question.
One reason I brought this up (besides the theoretical necessity of delineating what exactly it is that we are critical of, and giving an indication of why that criticism is important) is because if people are going to begin to learn about the lies, corruption and coverups in the world, it is more than likely they are going to run into a whole lot of disinformation. I'm sure a lot of people here will agree with me on that. I do not think though that it will be helpful to throw out criticisms particularly at someone who is trying to learn and who is being misled, because at best that will most likely foster resentment. I am saying this as a person who has definitely been misled before, and surely I haven't got my mind around the entire truth as it is now.
Connected to this I think it might be helpful to ask,
how do we know exactly when we are facing a valid source? I gave the example of how certain facts are brought to light by the sources themselves (one being through the Fabian Society contacts)... another way of looking at that is that, there is a lot of criticism of the mainstream media here (and in many cases rightly so)... but on the other hand, if non-mainstream medias do not agree, how is it exactly that we can come to recognize just what is truth or not?
Another example is contradictions within the mainstream media itself. Adam Curtis in The Power of Nightmares goes through lengths to explain that Al Qaida was a myth created for rhetorical purposes, yet the term is still used in other BBC news broadcasts...
Even images are becoming manipulated with greater skill, there is a textbook written about this :
http://www.amazon.ca/Propaganda-Informa ... st+centuryIn the future might it not become next to impossible to actually know what is going on?
Concerning sources, initially you don't know about accuracy and you have to take it as read, as well as investigating the source. I usually investigate sources by finding as many different windows on the same material as possible, and this means (allegedly) objective, ideologically based and anecdotal viewpoints** and looking for convergences. A narrow approach here doesn't help.
Regarding the Al Qaeda thing, they didn't exist originally, but through usage, the label has come to describe a basket of things that sort to hang together, therefore it has become a useful category.
This is a bit like the term 'anti fascism;' on here. I usually try to avoid this particular F-word, but as it was thrown up so many times I decided it was worth borrowing in order to discuss it's worth. It's about defining a common lexicon, even if you don't agree with particular aspects.
Regarding the 'clock that is right a third of the time'. Considering the inherent vagueries of the field, such a timepiece is not to be sniffed at.
**plus random or 'disinterested' viewpoints, this list can go on.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
)
