Is it possible for conspiracy theorists to engage in debate with their distrust of the media?

I have noticed that many conspiracy theorists have a knee-jerk distrust of anything that appears in the mainstream media, government reports, and other sources many outside of conspiracy circles would consider highly credible. At the same time, they seem to be willing to openly embrace any piece of information that is put out there by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a website and a matching world view.

Does this hamper debate between conspiracy theorists and the rest of the world? How can any meaningful debate occur if the debaters are unable to agree on certain factual premises?

I am not saying that any source is always going to be 100% accurate and unbiased. The most reputable newspapers run retractions and have editorial biases. Scientists who publish articles in peer reviewed journals have been known to falsify data. People make honest mistakes when trying to tabulate a figure, especially when they are not working with good data. This does not mean, however, that we should automatically disregard every fact, as opposed to opinion or conclusion, that appears in mainstream media. Perhaps conspiracy theorist would be better suited by attacking conclusions and opinions drawn from facts rather than calling people liars.

To give an example, let us say mainstream media outlets parrot a recent study in a reputable scientific journal that a particular blockbuster drug is "safe." The study was funded by the makers of the drug. If one reads the articles, they may read that the study looked at 2000 men who took the drug and found no increase in the rate of prostate cancer compared with 2000 similar men.

Is is perfectly logical to question the conclusion in the headline that the drug is safe. We may even question the bias of the study or the methodology of the study. Just because the drug does not cause prostate cancer in men it does not mean it can cause other illnesses or affect woman.

It would, however, be counterproductive to throw our hands up and say the whole study is a hoax because some guy in Ohio said on his website the drug gave him prostate cancer. It would be more productive for conspiracy theorists to state that the particular study found no increase in prostate cancer, but that does not mean the drug does not cause other illnesses or could cause prostate cancer in conditions not examined by the study.

Im a full on tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist in that I believe the government and big business lie to us everytime they make a statement.
Despite this Im not stupid and can think for myself, I dont believe something just because its written or not written somewhere, I believe it if it makes sense and seems to fit with everything else.

Example: I dont believe in reptilians despite how many websites its on, reason being is that if a highly advanced, highly intelligent, incredibly strong species wanted to eat humans I dont think they would need to hide behind human personas they would just enslave us properly.

Example: I do believe that 9-11 was an inside job, to much evidence to say so and the propaganda campaign they were running from the minute the 1st plane hit was just to much and I knew something was up.

So to your question, yes I think it is possible for us conspiracy theorists to debate with the MSM,
But can the MSM debate with us?
Everytime I see someone on TV who doesnt tow the MSM line they are quite visciously attacked, it seems the MSM automatically assumes if you dont believe whatever they dish out you must be a nutjob.

Not all conspiracy theorists fit in the accepted mould of moron, being a member yourself you must have seen and read some very intelligent and thought provoking posts by people who would be considered "psychotic" by the MSM

The Media are getting Weaker, pay attention and Focus (Look in their Eyes now)

Reptilians.......Yes...no joke...Focus...once again don't come with Judgement, cause no one gon' get me #ed up...

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Ironically, if a piece of government information supports the person's theory, then it's automatically assumed to be true and cited as a source. If a piece of government information goes against the person's theory, then it's automatically dumped into the "part of the cover-up" pile.

you also have to realize that a lot of CT'ers
also have a memory database of prior
events and stats they can pull out at
a moments notice. If somebody tries
to debate on something we already know
is false cuz it's already been disproven,
then they can cite all the sources they
want, won't make a hill of beans.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I have noticed that many conspiracy theorists have a knee-jerk distrust of anything that appears in the mainstream media, government reports, and other sources many outside of conspiracy circles would consider highly credible. At the same time, they seem to be willing to openly embrace any piece of information that is put out there by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a website and a matching world view.

Does this hamper debate between conspiracy theorists and the rest of the world? How can any meaningful debate occur if the debaters are unable to agree on certain factual premises?

I am not saying that any source is always going to be 100% accurate and unbiased. The most reputable newspapers run retractions and have editorial biases. Scientists who publish articles in peer reviewed journals have been known to falsify data. People make honest mistakes when trying to tabulate a figure, especially when they are not working with good data. This does not mean, however, that we should automatically disregard every fact, as opposed to opinion or conclusion, that appears in mainstream media. Perhaps conspiracy theorist would be better suited by attacking conclusions and opinions drawn from facts rather than calling people liars.

To give an example, let us say mainstream media outlets parrot a recent study in a reputable scientific journal that a particular blockbuster drug is "safe." The study was funded by the makers of the drug. If one reads the articles, they may read that the study looked at 2000 men who took the drug and found no increase in the rate of prostate cancer compared with 2000 similar men.

Is is perfectly logical to question the conclusion in the headline that the drug is safe. We may even question the bias of the study or the methodology of the study. Just because the drug does not cause prostate cancer in men it does not mean it can cause other illnesses or affect woman.

It would, however, be counterproductive to throw our hands up and say the whole study is a hoax because some guy in Ohio said on his website the drug gave him prostate cancer. It would be more productive for conspiracy theorists to state that the particular study found no increase in prostate cancer, but that does not mean the drug does not cause other illnesses or could cause prostate cancer in conditions not examined by the study.

Problem is the media has lied and continues to lie. I don't trust people that lie all the time. Would you?
Well at least conspiracy investigators are not bought off by a corporate multinational or powerful wall-street lobby.
Are you actually trying to argue for main stream media credibility after all the "killed stories"?

Seriously? Come on.

Well for one they have been known to lie and warp stories to help push thier sponsors/investors/part owner's agenda. With all the pro-corporate censorship and amero-centric bias it makes sense to not look corporate sponsored news with any form of journalistic legitimacy.

They have a history of lying,censoring,misrepresenting news so we don't look at them as legitimate anymore.
The convenient cherry-picking is also kinda annoying.

I see where you are going with this question. I do. But you have to consider that you completely stereotyped anyone who holds a taboo belief that is likely contrary to what is proffessed and accepted as truth. As an ATS member I have learned the number one rule to any good bit of information whether from the mouth of a TFH wearing conspiracy theorist or CNN is to look around for supportive evidence or lack thereof. Governments and MSM have been known to lie and twist info. based on thier agenda that is why conspiracy theorists exist am I right? If you take information at face value with out digging around a bit, you are techinically considered a MORON and the likelyhood of any intelligent debate is gone. My question is always, what is the agenda and why would the presenting information be relayed in this manner...to what end? Deny ignorance.

The biggest problem is that conspiracy nuts tend to mythologize the counterpoint in an attempt to legitimize the mythology they prefer. This requires one to willfuly discard the inconvenient evidence at any cost. Conspiracies are usually born from the "kernal of truth" but they are spread through denial, not enlightenment.

Lack of knowledge and misunderstanding lead to the creation of monolithic, invisible, all pervasive threats.

It's a modern version of the god complex.

Eg.

nwo - devil
disinfo agents - demons
sheeple - infidels

And the theorists get to play the heros trying to save all stupid, blind sinners from the devil