Originally posted by evanfitz
Ah yes, the most reliable websites.
Heres the problem people make, you read one thing then automatically believe its true.
No this is just the first 3 sources I found on google, there are hundreds more. Fox and CNN are government-controlled propaganda stations as they have
consistently proven themselves to be, they do not ask critical questions or talk about things that make the government look "bad", regardless of
their staged "debates" like crossfire or what not. Besides, Fox or CNN do not say that what I quoted was FALSE, they just never brought it up,
period. It's called media silence - just don't talk about things that are "off limits" and you can't be accused of lying. You can always explain
yourself by saying "we didn't think this was newsworthy" - case closed
Let me ask you this, do you think Hans Blix never said what that website claims he said about Bush and his Iraq plans? Do you think the Project for
the New American Century, created by our own government WAY before 911 is also all fake?
What you need to do is read from other sources (By that, I don't mean go searching up "USdominatestheworldanditsalsoveryevil.com"), try CNN.com,
wikipedia.org, FOX (yes FOX), then try aljazeera or the anti-bush sites that so many love.
They are not anti-Bush, they are anti-lies, anti-propaganda, anti-disinformation. If Bush aligns himself with lies, propaganda, and disinfo, then by
default those sites become anti-Bush, only as long as he's a liar and a con artist. But they are not anti-Bush just for its own sake, because they
don't like his hair or lifestyle.
After discovering the difference (and yes you will) make up your mind on which ones more reliable.
Which one constantly quotes unconfirmed or anonymous government sources, and which one actually presents EVIDENCE and quotes people that exist? Which
one asks questions like "Was Bush's government involved in 911 and is there evidence to support it?" and which one ASSUMES it was al-qaeda as our
government says, CASE CLOSED.
So do you trust the news that just takes the government's word for it, or the ones that question the government and its policies, and provide
evidence that speaks for itself?
People fall victim to false information solely because its what they want to hear (I admit, I fall victim at times. Those are what makes good ratings)
, the best thing to do is try and disprove it (only when you believe its a sourced to be questioned, you can usually tell by how its written).
Sometimes you can't tell by how it's written, sometimes you just need to look at the available EVIDENCE and decide for yourself. The point is not to
believe ANY news source, it is to look at the opinion of MANY (mainstream AND alternative), look at the evidence available, and decide for yourself.
If you just believe any news source, you are no longer interested in truth.
So far, Al Jazeera is a far more objective and honest source than Fox or CNN, which is actually WHY they actually QUESTION the government and its
actions and intentions. If a news site fails to ask questions and just takes the party line as a given, it is not a real news site anymore, it is just
a government propaganda machine, isn't it?
If a news site cares more about ratings than truth, then why would anyone expect it to be "reliable"?
If you are so interested in proof, why do you believe a word of what your government says, like for example what happened during 911 and who is
responsible, or that Iraq has WMD's, etc? Why does anyone believe a word the government says, given the numerous times they have been proven to be
liars and flip floppers?
[edit on 18-8-2005 by lilblam]